PDA

View Full Version : SOPA or No SOPA?



rcallicotte
01-05-2012, 02:58 PM
http://americancensorship.org/?action_code=FgxRWxYUOVIKQV0YAFYeUQ&td=VZFBSwMxEIX_SshJoU03a3dr14tSqid7kIIHKyHNZtvQ7M4 ym1Sp-N-dYKUIucx8j_dmJl_cttp5XnE09wcjEIWBlo9443AInW4toRfYs oX23hkIwRLUdY2SQCnnbLVk82nYs7VF1CbRk-sTm8qioApt7dCaoCKmGOootSUzCOcK-qCOruZVF70f8QEiks1fFbf_G_0eugsNQPaqcd4OvHp7p47bdbF XDWCrkieXN5Rh0OpgVZ0i80zm40yOs4LlsipmVS4vCtertBvJZ lNR5kKWpchldhHEwaLSO9slq2c4Oe_1ZlKIjF29uq6Gj4Gt1qw Q8o7hsboV2TV7suYAmwnlZvQke6RzNPC5mRBNxnvdBzJN00q6O 01-PvvDImfL9DtsAd0O7TCQvIU6entW_G7Lv38A

beverins
01-05-2012, 03:24 PM
No SOPA!

probiner
01-05-2012, 06:11 PM
No SOPA, No NDAA, No Crooks

erikals
01-05-2012, 10:05 PM
No SOPA

jburford
01-06-2012, 01:30 AM
IMO, the Internet is highly censored. Be it from Google or Bing or Yahoo or the Governments as in here in Germany (terrible). What would the "Government" want to censor other than stopping perhaps Sites with Kiddie Porn or Bombmaking Sites?

Seriously feel the whole thing is a scam into getting people to think, "The Big Bad Government is against you."

Cheers

erikals
01-06-2012, 01:37 AM
if SOPA goes live, the people they are after will just go "underground" instead.
i'd hardly call that a success.

probiner
01-06-2012, 01:57 AM
It's a success when you put underground what was over the ground, the information that flows to any and everyone, parallel to the bought media that obscures what actually matters, doesn't make the right questions to power, doesn't report or inform correctly, fabricates narratives, and wants to be the medium between citizens of the world and be their Kantian vision of the world.
It's censorship. And that's not something we should shrug to as the walls close in. Just like secret vote counting and election fraud.

jburford
01-06-2012, 02:05 AM
Ok, looked up a bit more information on it, as the presented site above did nothing for me.

Here from the Wiki Site.....
*********************************************
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as H.R. 3261, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors. The bill expands the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods.[2] Now before the House Judiciary Committee, it builds on the similar PRO-IP Act of 2008 and the corresponding Senate bill, the PROTECT IP Act.[3]

The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who requests the court orders, the actions could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as PayPal from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for 10 pieces of music or movies within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.[4]

Proponents of the bill say it protects the intellectual property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws especially against foreign websites.[5] They cite examples such as Google's $500 million settlement with the Department of Justice for its role in a scheme to target U.S. consumers with ads to buy illegal prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies. Opponents say that it infringes on First Amendment rights, is Internet censorship,[6] will cripple the Internet,[7] and will threaten whistle-blowing and other free speech.[8]

The House Judiciary Committee held hearings on SOPA on November 16 and December 15, 2011. The Committee is scheduled to continue debate when Congress returns from its winter recess.[9]

************************************************** ******

Honestly, in reading that, I personally do not see the big stink. As the law is the law, if someone is stealing from your neighbors house or a business, one would call the police and expect them to stop it or keep it from happenning. Why is protecting non legal business in the Internet ok? Is not theft or fraud, still theft or fraud, or should it be protected because it is on the "net"?

Understand the average users problems with it as many, many download tons of songs, videos and software in a non legal manner and do not want it to stop.

Oh well, will see what happens.

probiner
01-06-2012, 02:15 AM
You don't get it... Pirates, Insurgents, Terrorists, Nazis are the terms they like to paint stuff to justify outrageous actions that otherwise everyone would oppose to. You really think they give a crap about intellectual property rights? Or what they actually care about is having that power?
Of course theft should be fought but this is not about it.

Judge for yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc

erikals
01-06-2012, 02:18 AM
the main problem with SOPA is the different waves of consequences it will create.

SOPA could very well turn out to create the exact opposite effect of what it meant to make.
not to mention giving all the power to "a few men".

 

jburford
01-06-2012, 02:44 AM
Was a good video to watch and laugh with..... Is very often that way. I can remember 20 years back or so, there was a big bandwagen against the big bad Porn distributors such as Hustler, Playbay and so on..... What the people did not know was that then the biggest distributors of Porn were really AT&T & Ford if I remember correctly.

I know I was amazed through all the years that YouTube were left alone to build and grow although there was major copyright infringement.

Anyways, back to 3D for me.

archijam
01-06-2012, 03:02 AM
Honestly, in reading that, I personally do not see the big stink.

Have a look at this article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/toms-hardware-sopa-Stop-Online-Piracy-Act-PROTECT-IP-Senate,14393.html

If someone posts an un-copyrighted render/animation on the NT forums, they could be shut down without warning. That is pretty serious, no?

Chris S. (Fez)
01-06-2012, 03:42 AM
I do not support SOPA in its present form but some power applied with common sense would be welcome. The copyright ripoffs are absolutely rampant and hurting small and large businesses alike.

Cutman
01-06-2012, 03:59 AM
This legislation is helping the IP shoot themselves in the foot.

There have been countless times I've bought music on the basis of hearing the track as a background to someone's showreel or short on sites like Vimeo.

The studio and music publishers continue to completely misunderstand how people consume media today and how much people are prepared to pay. There have been many studies showing that the more people use media the more they purchase and many resort to piracy only because the user experience is superior not because it is free. If people could consume media in the way they wanted they'd happily pay for it but not in the restricted cockeyed way the studios want to currently.

There will be a SOPA web and a free web where life goes on normally with hosting services out of China and portals that connect you to the content you want springing up everywhere. It was impossible to close down the wikileaks info and closing down proxy servers to content will be the same impossible task. I could foresee the problem being even worse as a result of this legislation. It'll certainly hit US jobs and result in a poorer web experience and even lower profits for the IP holders.

Afalk
01-06-2012, 04:25 AM
No SPOA for me thanks.

probiner
01-06-2012, 04:30 AM
Youtube takedown of that Megaupload video (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/youtube-universal-megaupload/) with music stars by Universal Music.

At the same time Megaupload was launching cloud service called Megabox, where you can buy musics and the artists keep 90% of the profit!
http://www.megabox.com

List of SOPA Supporters (http://www.bea.org.ar/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/SOPA-Supporters.pdf)

Everything we see today, the wars, the crisis, the regulations is all about dominance, engineering and shutting down the competition. Be it puppet governments, Media, Corporations, Banks, etc.

WikiLeaks anyone?

Bill Carey
01-06-2012, 07:35 AM
No sopa. Like so many nanny state laws it assumes the best of the people who want it and enforce it. It always winds up being used by the worst of people.

BigHache
01-06-2012, 10:10 AM
I read the bill instead of instead of the information that site presented. The language in the bill is pretty vague. I'm not for pirating at all, but there's a lot of potential power in this bill that only goes to one individual. Sure let's combat piracy but it can be done better.

Dexter2999
01-06-2012, 10:26 AM
SOPA isn't about artists, it's about business (read accountants and lawyers)

That "vague" language that reads that anyone using copyrighted material could go to jail means that if you post a home video of a children's birthday party where everyone is singing "Happy Birthday"...technically you could go to jail. That song has an ongoing copyright belonging to the family of the original artist. You post a video showing a performance of said piece without having paid for the right to do so, then you are guilty.

SOPA is just another example of the Govt. trying to figure out how to control something they barely understand because people with money are telling them to.

LW_Will
01-06-2012, 10:33 AM
-1

fazi69
01-06-2012, 10:35 AM
Probiner +3 points in respect stats. It is funny how many outsiders see in Ron Paul last chance for the USA. The next step without Him will be just another 1776. Maybe not now but when your neighbors will start disappear in the night like in Soviets. You have just signed by Obama NDAA legislation that first time in human history put tyranny on paper. Even nazis did not have legislations that say that you can just disappear without a trial and never be seen again. Oh yeah ..... NO SOPA !!

warmiak
01-06-2012, 11:45 AM
Here is a bit wider take on SOPA and related issues (by Eric Raymond)

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4009#more-4009

erikals
01-06-2012, 12:19 PM
 
...and now Obama signed the NDAA, keeping Guantanamo (www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PgzLOTVXbg&#t=8m11s꞉)
...wow!

 

50one
01-06-2012, 01:08 PM
Yip, the NDAA is just scary ****, imagine that, just disappear like that, bam, no one know where are you and they could water board till the rest of your life, without anyone one knows about it.

Dexter2999
01-06-2012, 01:34 PM
Yes he signed the NDAA...NO He wasn't happy about it. But the President of the US has no line item veto ability. It is a common abuse of our system for distasteful legislation to get attached to "must have" legislation.

This legislation just happened to be attached to benefits for active duty military and veterans. If he hadn't signed it just would have given Republicans ammunition to paint him "not caring about our military".

You have heard of "win-win" situations? This one was "lose-lose".

wrench
01-06-2012, 05:51 PM
No to SOPA. It gives unreasonable rights to *companies* to shut down websites without proof. There will be no "Innocent until proven guilty". A further problem is that everyone's attention is on SOPA, but there is another bill called PIPA in the offing. Watch out that it doesn't get through while all the attention is on SOPA.

Whatever you feel about Justin Bieber he is a useful guide to what would happen if SOPA got through: http://www.freebieber.org/

B

erikals
01-06-2012, 06:01 PM
Free Justin Bieber!...
she doesn't deserve to be put in jail...

Philbert
01-06-2012, 07:33 PM
Well Sony supported SOPA and for that Anonymous hacked their sites again.

http://freakoutnation.com/2012/01/06/anonymous-hacks-sony-again-over-their-corporate-support-for-sopa/

probiner
01-06-2012, 10:45 PM
Yes he signed the NDAA...NO He wasn't happy about it. But the President of the US has no line item veto ability. It is a common abuse of our system for distasteful legislation to get attached to "must have" legislation.

This legislation just happened to be attached to benefits for active duty military and veterans. If he hadn't signed it just would have given Republicans ammunition to paint him "not caring about our military".

You have heard of "win-win" situations? This one was "lose-lose".

Yeah that system of legislation is quite strange...

As for the President or the "Administration" happiness, you are incorrect, apparently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNDHbT44cY
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development---one-way-train-to-gitmo

It's like the ideas applied abroad, and overlooked by the people, came home... Sounds like if it was just applied to foreigners it would be ok...

Bill Carey
01-07-2012, 01:09 AM
Yes he signed the NDAA...NO He wasn't happy about it. But the President of the US has no line item veto ability. It is a common abuse of our system for distasteful legislation to get attached to "must have" legislation.

This legislation just happened to be attached to benefits for active duty military and veterans. If he hadn't signed it just would have given Republicans ammunition to paint him "not caring about our military".

You have heard of "win-win" situations? This one was "lose-lose".

I don't like the NDAA either, but get a little real about saint obama's intentions. The final version of the bill was written by full time Democrat Carl Levin and part time democrat John McCain. Levin and Obama are in lock step, always have been, and the president knew exactly what would be in that bill. Watch this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s and the sheep cheered.

liquidik
01-08-2012, 10:42 AM
 
...and now Obama signed the NDAA, keeping Guantanamo (www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PgzLOTVXbg&#t=8m11s꞉)
...wow!

 

So much for a peace Nobel prize uh!

erikals
01-08-2012, 02:37 PM
I don't like the NDAA either, but get a little real about saint obama's intentions. The final version of the bill was written by full time Democrat Carl Levin and part time democrat John McCain. Levin and Obama are in lock step, always have been, and the president knew exactly what would be in that bill. Watch this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s and the sheep cheered.

not good, not good at all Obama...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USRg3h4AdE

followed by... ;[
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PgzLOTVXbg&#t=8m11s%EA%9E%89

 

Chris S. (Fez)
01-08-2012, 03:41 PM
I suspect the president was compelled by the 25% relapse rate of released Gitmo detainees and by sneaky Republican policy. I understand why the decision was made but I believe Gitmo and its Afghani twin must be considered war-time necessities and closed before the US leaves Afghanistan.

With Islamist parties capturing 65% of votes ( http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-islamists-claim-62-latest-voting-131242628.html ), the so-called Arab spring is quickly becoming an Islamic winter. Women's rights, religious freedom and civil liberties will suffer tremendously. Fortunately, young Muslims have already fallen hopelessly for freedom...through the internet. The US does not need to drop bombs, it just needs to make sure the internet EVERYWHERE reflects a free and open society. Another reason SOPA is poorly conceived.

Islamic regimes like Iran are launching strictly censored Halal internet: http://www.itproportal.com/2012/01/07/iran-begins-internet-crackdown-preps-countrywide-halal-intranet/

China relies on the same censorship to stifle dissent and maintain control. Only fragile, paranoid states fear personal freedoms. Liberties and laws must be applied universally to men/woman and, yup, enemy combats. US need to set an example. We can't insist communism and sexist, supremist theocracies are unjust while suppressing people and personal expression.

Cryonic
01-08-2012, 08:33 PM
There is no reason for SOPA. IP is already "protected" by the DMCA. The Rights holder issues a takedown notice to the site in question.

T-Light
01-08-2012, 09:25 PM
May I just say, FANTASTIC, I remember when this forum was full of this kind of stuff, good work that man, long may it continue.

SOPA is just another building block of a censored society, in Britain, this has been growing since the mid nineties (OK earlier, mid 90's is when the powers that be started taking this sh*t seriously)

There's so much going on under the surface these days (things we're not been told, major issues that aren't being broadcast) SOPA is almost small potatoes.

There was a guy in the Bush era that believed anyone not watching adverts in TV breaks should be charged and sent to prison. Many nutters believed He was correct. The problem is those nutters are still in place, no matter which political party populates the Whitehouse, house of representatives or the Senate.

It says something when the heads of Government of Greece and Italy can be swept away and be replaced by legislative bureaucrats and the worlds media says 'Ok Fine, it's the right thing to do'. There's something very wrong going on right now in legislature, media and government and it's not solely confined to the US.

Eyes and ears open folks.

Titus
01-08-2012, 10:01 PM
There is no reason for SOPA. IP is already "protected" by the DMCA. The Rights holder issues a takedown notice to the site in question.

Yeah, DMCA! A few weeks ago was uploading a 3d file of a caterpillar to turbosquid, they automatically frozen the files because of a DMCA takedown notice for the word "caterpillar" from the CAT machinery company. The file was accepted after two weeks and a couple of e-mails. Too much power given to too few people.

jasonwestmas
01-08-2012, 10:23 PM
Censorship should be up to parental control not the government. Small Gov't please!

Cryonic
01-08-2012, 11:43 PM
Yeah, DMCA! A few weeks ago was uploading a 3d file of a caterpillar to turbosquid, they automatically frozen the files because of a DMCA takedown notice for the word "caterpillar" from the CAT machinery company. The file was accepted after two weeks and a couple of e-mails. Too much power given to too few people.

And that is one of the problems. Since it is their IP, the burden of proof should be on them (or their legal representatives) to prove the infringement. SOPA doesn't even put that requirement in place. So, any lawyer can send Cease & Desist and expect the provider to comply with no real repercussions as most places won't be able or willing to verify that the lawyer really does represent the company who owns the IP as that would be more costly to the provider. Cheaper to just fold and give in...

Philbert
01-09-2012, 12:07 AM
Guilty until proven innocent. Apparently that's the way of the future.

glebe digital
01-09-2012, 03:49 AM
In his negative utopia, Orwell expressed fears that were actually troubling him in those years, that sooner or later, a form of the society he was envisioning would come about. The words ‘there will come a day…’ had relegated us all to waiting for that day, without giving us the mindset to ask ourselves whether in fact 1984 has in fact been with us for some time already.

What Orwell doesn’t do is invent a possible yet incredible future; in actuality, he builds up a collage of a past which is all too credible because it has already happened, notably in the Nazi & Soviet era of the 30′s & 40′s. In the course of the six decades since the book was published, the impression has been growing that whilst the book talked about what had already happened, it was also talking about what was happening now, and not what ‘could’ happen in the future.

Close-circuit control is now everywhere, on the streets & public parks, in factories & prisons, supermarkets & gated communities. The rise in popularity of the ‘hoodie’ among the young proletariat was not driven by the whims of fashion, but was in fact driven by the subconscious forces of personal expediency. Your personal internet history is -by law- retained by ISPs; the analogy would be for the Post Office to open all your mail, and make a facsimile of every private letter & correspondence that passes through it.

The next step is to pass legislation that will enable governements to 'cut you pipe' on a pretext, in this case, copyright infringement. Enjoy your freedom while it lasts.

wrench
01-09-2012, 05:15 AM
A thoughtful post by Steve Blank: http://steveblank.com/2012/01/04/why-the-movie-industry-cant-innovate-and-the-result-is-sopa/

B

jasonwestmas
01-09-2012, 08:26 AM
Guilty until proven innocent. Apparently that's the way of the future.

Yikes! That would be going back to the middle ages where paranoia rules.

Bill Carey
01-09-2012, 08:41 AM
Yikes! That would be going back to the middle ages where paranoia rules.

We're most of the way there. What were the middle ages but political correctness enforced by a ruthless government?

jasonwestmas
01-09-2012, 08:49 AM
We're most of the way there. What were the middle ages but political correctness enforced by a ruthless government?

Hehe, nice to know I'm not alone in this thinking. Yes, it's a humanitarian/legalistic system that is trying to install itself globally in the name of protection. I prefer that protection be in the family ordinance financed by a corporate paycheck only. It's only American ;)

Cryonic
01-09-2012, 11:11 PM
Actually guilty until proven innocent is the norm for most countries legal systems. The US was/is a rarity, but even it is dying here.

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 04:25 AM
Personally, I dont have a problem with any of this...

Its just people, with vested interests trying to do as much as they can to protect and control those interests, to maximise their influence and power.

Every alpha in every social species adopts such behaviours (in one metaphoric form or another), and all industries/interest groups (including workers unions/civil rights groups) do it to.

If I were in the position of these people, I would be doing EXACTLY the same thing, and I can guarantee that so would the vast majority of people, including those here who think its such a travesty... the world looks very different from the other side of the line.

djwaterman
01-10-2012, 04:53 AM
If I were in the position of these people, I would be doing EXACTLY the same thing, and I can guarantee that so would the vast majority of people, including those here who think its such a travesty... the world looks very different from the other side of the line.

Pretty much agree with everything he just said.

Chris S. (Fez)
01-10-2012, 06:51 AM
Personally, I dont have a problem with any of this...




I have no problem with people/companies protecting their property/interests but I do think the SOPA wording should be less sweeping.

wrench
01-10-2012, 07:38 AM
It's worrying when the head of the MPAA (Chris Dodds) asks why America can't be more like China. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mpaa-head-chris-dodd-online-censorship-bill-chinas-model_611984.html

B
PS. My main concern is that SOPA starts a dangerous precedent will mean that that the sheer exuberance and joy of this will be illegal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqG4oSfQYIY

jasonwestmas
01-10-2012, 07:50 AM
Its just people, with vested interests trying to do as much as they can to protect and control those interests, to maximise their influence and power.


Just people? You're pretty trusting.

Philbert
01-10-2012, 08:25 AM
It would be fine if it was just people trying to protect themselves, but it would be very easy for people to take this too far.

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 08:46 AM
Just people? You're pretty trusting.

Not sure I really get that... Pretty trusting, lol, not I... But just people, well yeah... What else are they?? Demons, alien lizard people, cyborgs from the future?

jasonwestmas
01-10-2012, 08:57 AM
Not sure I really get that... Pretty trusting, lol, not I... But just people, well yeah... What else are they?? Demons, alien lizard people, cyborgs from the future?

Are these just people your neighbors? lol.

Tonttu
01-10-2012, 09:10 AM
Well, they're obviously reptoids.

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 09:10 AM
still dont get what u mean... unless ofc ur attempting to make a word play gag which interprets "just" as "righteous" rather than "solely".

BigHache
01-10-2012, 09:31 AM
"Robot renegade cops" in "and outpost, on the edge, of space!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVDzuT0fXro

jasonwestmas
01-10-2012, 09:52 AM
still dont get what u mean... unless ofc ur attempting to make a word play gag which interprets "just" as "righteous" rather than "solely".

both meanings actually, but that's besides the point. Demons, vamps and hannibal lecters wouldn't need human Gov't to get people to bow down to them. ;)

Truthfully though, this is about controlling information (the highest form of influential power) and when Gov't starts controling that it means we risk surrendering our thoughts to less than sentient beings. But as you say everyone appears to be Just people. How do you know, people can totally lie or not know what they are talking about. . .etc. and tell you what you want to hear. Mere people . . .doesn't mean they are empathetic or intelligent.

But of course we all know this, just thought I would bring it up for the heck of it.

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 10:16 AM
Well... it means, I think, that they are infact, no more than mere people. How do I know this?? Well because (at least to the philosophical extent that anything can be truly "known")... Im pretty sure that Im a mere person, and I understand perfectly well their point of view... so I dont see any real difference between them, and me (income levels notwithstanding).

Now as for the whole "controlling information" thing... I refuse to take this as a valid point of view, because... its a false argument imo.

Yes, technically, you can group movies and music, and pretty much anything else thats a non-physical object together as "information"... but thats a very broad term, and totally incorrect for the argument being made against such control.

The kind of "information control" that is dangerous is that which attempts to control or suppress KNOWLEDGE. Like the vatican of old trying to cover up evidence for the earth going round the sun, or the current syrian state trying to get its media to tell only its version of events... but thats a VERY different animal.

Movies, music, any of these intellectual properties you care to mention CANNOT be described as knowledge, in any way shape or form.

I suppose you could say that knowing the plot of a given movie, or how good/bad the effects were represents a form of knowledge, but I cant see a single damn thing in either of these bills that would try to suppress/block access to that being shared online, or anywhere else.

Nor can I see anything that infringes in any way on peoples ability to share, or publish thought, opinion, rhetoric, or any other such item, however correct or false its content may be. (libelous/slanderous/defamatory statements notwithstanding).

I see nothing more than an industries attempt to gain as iron clad grip as it can on its own PRODUCTS (which is what movies.music/etc REALLY are... products)... And I would do nothing different myself given the clout and the opportunity to do so.

jasonwestmas
01-10-2012, 10:37 AM
Give an inch and they'll take the whole mile. I think history can teach us that. :D

The truth is, nobody is like you except a few things and it's dangerous to think so because it brings your guard down without much evidence. That's just my opinion based on a lot of conversations.

If you think you have evidence then good.

Yes creativity is a form of power and knowledge. . .end of story imo.

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 11:24 AM
Yup... and the give an inch argument can work the other way too...

Be too lax, and the web'll be FULL of pirate movies... What... you think uploaders are somehow more ethically motivated than movie producers?? Nonsense.

And yes, most people ARE broadly the same (particularly in the self interest vs altruism stakes) and there's decades of research and psychological observation that bears it out time and again.

And I never said that creativity wasnt the same as knowledge (though really they're not, sometimes the products of creativity are). I said movies/music/etc are NOT the same as knowledge, and trying to control access to these products is plainly not the same as trying to suppress knowledge, and there is NOTHING in either of these bills that attempts to suppress or control access to knowledge, opinion, free speech, nor thought. qed.

jasonwestmas
01-10-2012, 11:34 AM
I just don't see how you are missing the connections between music, (art in general) creativity and knowledge. . . or I'm not seeing the disconnection. . . but that's ok. I mean if it's not creativity then it's merely replication.

I don't like the gov't trying to teach me what I should or shouldn't show, that kind of protection can be taken way too far, hence the inch => mile argument. I think Ethics should be taught in the home only, this isn't an emotional idea, just a practical and self-preserving one that works based on the trust factor I mentioned.

I'm not sure how controlling access to information is any different from suppressing information.

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 11:43 AM
because the latest Xmen (or whatever other movie) is NOT information (at least not in the knowedge sense).

If Im missing the connection... its because there is no connection, other than in the production process itself.

Knowledge is required to make a movie, write a song, etc...

that movie/song whatever else, is a PRODUCT of knowledge... not knowledge itself.

Is hollywood trying to suppress access to information on how to make movies (thus eliminating indies and consolidating its position)??

No.

Thats the difference.

kadri
01-10-2012, 12:14 PM
"Its just people, with vested interests trying to do as much as they can to protect and control those interests, to maximise their influence and power."
Of course they are , but that doesn't make it right:stop:

You can say the same thing about nations ...They try to do the same and what do we have in the end? War , imperialism etc...Only just nations , companies , people with vested interests trying to do as much as they can to protect and control those interests, to maximise their influence and power...hmm...

They give a s**t about free speech or collateral damage. We think that many things are now only in history books when there are so much people who don't care and know anything about these kind of problems the future is clear.

Most companies , countries doesn't saw the internet and the uncontrolled really(kinda) free zone coming . Every nation will step by step narrow the free corners of internet according his and her companies need. I had to use proxies and what not other ways for nearly 2 years to see tutorials-videos on Youtube because of absurd laws we have here. Do you think this can not happen to you? Wait and see . 20 years later you will tell these years like a fable to others and they will not quite understand you because by now(then) they will only know what they are allowed to know and use as internet. Unfortunately i think that this will happen, but i am curious in what degree...

JCG
01-10-2012, 12:26 PM
If I were in the position of these people, I would be doing EXACTLY the same thing, and I can guarantee that so would the vast majority of people, including those here who think its such a travesty... the world looks very different from the other side of the line.

I actually disagree. There is indeed a large group in every society that would like to wield absolute power, if allowed. However, I think the vast majority of people in most modern societies like the notion that there are certain minimum rights and principles that are intrinsic to modern civilization and inalienable.

Considering the direct, personal consequences that it can have on any individual's life, I think that "due process" would rank among the very top of those rights and principles.

Even if those companies are saying, "give the power to bypass due process only to us," I would still feel terrified at the notion that a law that cuts such a basic principle can be allowed to pass. Most people would much rather live in a society where that would be considered impossible, even if it limits their own personal power.

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 12:51 PM
Most people would much rather live in a society where that would be considered impossible, even if it limits their own personal power.

As would I... I would much prefer to live in a society/world where the acquisition of (lets say for arguments sake) absolute power was impossible.

However...

If the opportunity arose for absolute power to be seized by someone, and I was in a position to get in there and take it for myself... then I would, without hesitation. If for no other reason than Id rather NOT let someone else have it over me.

If a person were, in such a situation, to pass on the opportunity to seize such power out of some notion of nobility, or ethics... then they would have, at best, committed a hugely irresponsible act (by allowing the power to be free to be taken and potentially used for bad when they themselves could have taken it and used it for good), or at worst... stupidity... because whomsoever does decide to take it may turn on u, and ur inaction has now cost u the ultimate price.

I would LOVE to live in some airy fairy utopia whre everyone was free and happy to live wonderful lives, and the lions laid down with the lambs... but IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN!!!

It aint love that makes the world go round, it's competition... and its competing interests.

Now Im sure some like to think... "well Im not like that".

But reli... whens the last time u went for a job interview, saw the other people waiting, and thought, "no, u take the job", and walked away?

I'll tell you when... NEVER... because you WANT that job and its paycheck to look after YOUR self, YOUR family, YOUR interests.

Now sure, having got said job we may feel for those other hopefuls, still stuck on the unemployment line, we may understand their trouble, we may want to help them, we may even go a lil out of our way to help them... but will we just lay down, let their interests trump our own and have them take the shirt off our back... no, no we wont.

Thats just human nature, and the nature of all things.

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 12:56 PM
"Its just people, with vested interests trying to do as much as they can to protect and control those interests, to maximise their influence and power."
Of course they are , but that doesn't make it right:stop:...

... I had to use proxies and what not other ways for nearly 2 years to see tutorials-videos on Youtube because of absurd laws we have here.

So what you're saying is...

YOU had a vested interest in getting access to certain videos on youtube, so you took whatever steps were necessary to achieve this aim, disregarding what the law of your country had to say about it??

Just a person, pursuing their own self interest...

is it right?

probiner
01-10-2012, 01:10 PM
Cmon RebelHill, so culture is separated from knowledge? Documentaries, Sci-fi, War, televised news segments, books, music??
Actually I find strange that a bill like this being serious about IP, doesn't talk about books and software, go figure...
As for the self interest, so what if I make my self interest a regulation and a law? Or better, I sitting in a public office, get money to make others self-interest into law?
Self-interest is ok, making it into law is what is more and more being put into dispute, be it corporate interest, be it civil rights interest.

Anyway what I want to say is that the premise (if we understand it) is righteous, alike any other BS control-freak Act they they pass, but will the effects be righteous? Ah!...

Are people hurting? Yes. Is it because of the internet? No! How many were arrested for the criminal practices, both in private sector and the government, that lead to the economic crisis and drained consumer power? Ah!...
They always fail to address the causes (it would be on them) and keep presenting hideous solutions to solve the consequences.

We can't say the last decade alone haven't taught us anything. One thing they don't like is "Due process"

The bill is so broad with so many levels when you look at the wording and especially the supporters.



(...) Permits such entities to stop or refuse services to certain sites that endanger public health by distributing prescription medication that is adulterated, misbranded, or without a valid prescription. (...)

(...) Expands the criminal offenses of trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services to include: (1) counterfeit drugs; and (2) goods or services falsely identified as meeting military standards or intended for use in a national security, law enforcement, or critical infrastructure application.

Increases the penalties for: (1) specified trade secret offenses intended to benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent; and (2) various other intellectual property offenses as amended by this Act.(...)

This is about WAR, control-freakness and shuting down alternatives, again. IP is just the "righteous" vehicle; like security, patriotism, alliances, casualties, religion.





It says something when the heads of Government of Greece and Italy can be swept away and be replaced by legislative bureaucrats and the worlds media says 'Ok Fine, it's the right thing to do'. There's something very wrong going on right now in legislature, media and government and it's not solely confined to the US.

Eyes and ears open folks.
I would say in Europe is even worse though slower, because at least in the US they speak the same language and its all within one country. The movements we see here made by the EU are scary, especially the European Council, and are starting to show the effects, but they go so much under the radar because it's mostly happening here and there. I don't think EU citizens feel as one, in the same extent an EU Government could rule them.

"E pur si muove!"

jburford
01-10-2012, 01:21 PM
Having to agree with RebehHill on most all of his points.

I feel the major cohorts Industry (yes, same as the Creating Industry itself as pointed out early in this Thread), of the likes of MegaUpload, Fileserve, FileJungle, Safelinking, DepositFiles, and so on and so on making Mega Millions of Dollars trying to rile up everyone to protect their business.

This is not about freedom of speach and thoughts imo, or trying to "control" the internet.

Censorship in some forms, but almost every aspect of our lives is censored wether it being the history in the history books, what is offered in the various stores, the news presented in any form, and the ultimate in America and accepted you Voice/Vote. (Presedential/General Election) Not One Voice, One Count, but rather Censorsed fully and an alternate Electoral Collage makes their Voice and Direction heard, without being tied to the vote in their area....... Talk about the Ultimate Censorship!

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 01:22 PM
Ummm... I didnt say culture was separated from knowledge... nor did anything I said imply it.

I said, quite plainly, and I'll say it again...

MOVIES/SONGS/ETC ARE NOT KNOWLEDGE.

They are the PRODUCTS of knowledge, and these bills seek to exert tighter controls SOLELY on PRODUCTS.

I also fail to see whats wrong with any of this...
(...) Permits such entities to stop or refuse services to certain sites that endanger public health by distributing prescription medication that is adulterated, misbranded, or without a valid prescription. (...)

(...) Expands the criminal offenses of trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services to include: (1) counterfeit drugs; and (2) goods or services falsely identified as meeting military standards or intended for use in a national security, law enforcement, or critical infrastructure application.

Increases the penalties for: (1) specified trade secret offenses intended to benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent; and (2) various other intellectual property offenses as amended by this Act.(...)

Are you suggesting that people should be free to deal in counterfeit medications/products, to sell controlled medications/drugs without prescription or medical knowledge/oversight, so sell products that do not, or cannot perform the tasks they claim??

Some may like to think that unlicensed, unregulated snake oil sellers, or cheap knock off eqipment manufacturers are offering them some kind of "alternative"... but they're not... they are (again, self interested folk) preying of the stupidity of people who like to think such things, and whom are paranoid enough to think that anything officially licensed, approved, or regulated is part of some conspiracy.

jburford
01-10-2012, 01:22 PM
Probiner, are you for No Control of Anything, and No Laws or Regulations governing anything in the Internet? Or what"s your spin here?

rcallicotte
01-10-2012, 01:35 PM
Then that is the difference between you and the geniuses who created the Constitution of the U.S. Not saying I rank at their level of intelligence, but we're some distance from producing a better way to enable people to have their freedom and still have rule of law...unless you know a better way.





As would I... I would much prefer to live in a society/world where the acquisition of (lets say for arguments sake) absolute power was impossible.

However...

If the opportunity arose for absolute power to be seized by someone, and I was in a position to get in there and take it for myself... then I would, without hesitation. If for no other reason than Id rather NOT let someone else have it over me.

erikals
01-10-2012, 01:42 PM
like i said before, all SOPA will do is to scare the criminals to go underground.
is that better?

do we really want even more hidden criminal networks?

jburford
01-10-2012, 01:47 PM
Then that is the difference between you and the geniuses who created the Constitution of the U.S. Not saying I rank at their level of intelligence, but we're some distance from producing a better way to enable people to have their freedom and still have rule of law...unless you know a better way.

rcallicotte, what are you refering to? The part about the Electoral Collage?

Is it really genius or ingenius, to give the power of the voice to be heard to the people, and at the same time, take it away, by being scared of how the "mass" of people could vote?

Will have to do some research, has been too long, getting older, is that actually in the Consitution in regards to how the General Election will take place and how the votes will be counted, and which count actually counts?

And anyways, I would think it would not be a problem to have 1 Vote - 1 Voice (1 Count).

jburford
01-10-2012, 01:53 PM
erikals,
can hear you and understand your point. . . . but how is it any different then from allowing access to Kiddie Pron, then? Should that just be also allowed and not controlled nor stopped?

I sort of feel this is like what my step father said to me years ago.

A lock is not to keep a Thief out, it is to keep an honest person honest!

As, if there is a will, there is a way. Think this is more to keep an honest person honest, or ok, agree controll the pocket book on where the money flows in this aspect.

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 01:57 PM
Then that is the difference between you and the geniuses who created the Constitution of the U.S. Not saying I rank at their level of intelligence, but we're some distance from producing a better way to enable people to have their freedom and still have rule of law...unless you know a better way.

I dont really get what you're saying... at least not regarding that of mine you quoted.

I was making a hypothetical point for arguments sake, not describing some system of governance/ascension.

My point was... id rather have the gun and not need it, than need the gun and not have it.

Or are you saying that my preference for... "a society where absolute power is unattainable", is the kind of society which the writers of the constitution sought to prevent?

(btw, they werent geniuses... the US constitution is mostly copied from magna carta, and a few other docs... see right there, more copyright infringement)

jburford
01-10-2012, 01:59 PM
ahh, ok, must have missed a post earlier....

JCG
01-10-2012, 02:02 PM
As would I... I would much prefer to live in a society/world where the acquisition of (lets say for arguments sake) absolute power was impossible.

However...

If the opportunity arose for absolute power to be seized by someone, and I was in a position to get in there and take it for myself... then I would, without hesitation. If for no other reason than Id rather NOT let someone else have it over me.

It actually sounds like you agree that if a group is promoting a law that will allow them to take punitive action against any individual, anywhere in the world, without due process, you should oppose it because it's in our own best interest that your fundamental rights are not stripped away from you?

Through strength of numbers, it is still possible to stop this particular power-grab. You're arguing that would be the natural response encoded in our evolution. Yet, you also argue that we should not oppose it because it is natural for that group to attempt it...(?)

Even I am conflicted by his law, because I guess it would be economically beneficial for me if they actually made every pirating site disappear from the Internet. However, allowing private entities to take punitive action without due process is too strong a precedent to give away just for this.

We're not talking about a fairy land ruled by bunnies and kittens. We're talking about what we took for granted just 10 years ago and that we have not yet given up.


like i said before, all SOPA will do is to scare the criminals to go underground.
is that better?

do we really want even more hidden criminal networks?

Oh yes, it is better! Piracy has no negative effects if it's hidden underground. It's only when non-computer-savvy granny Smith and papa Joe have easy access to pirated materials that it starts having an economic effect.

erikals
01-10-2012, 02:08 PM
erikals,
can hear you and understand your point. . . . but how is it any different then from allowing access to Kiddie Pron, then? Should that just be also allowed and not controlled nor stopped?

this is exactly the reason why not to have SOPA,

in Norway, police can track those criminals on the internet, (and they do)

tracking criminals would be very difficult if SOPA is ordered,
as the criminals will go underground and hide. (using misc software)

 

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 02:20 PM
Well...

Im not american, so sopa, dmca, all of that doesnt apply to me in the slightest... soooo... Im in no danger of having any fundamental rights stripped away by such legislation.

Also, if I were, then Im not sure that being told "You cant steal" is really much of an affront to said fundamental liberty.

Due process... take it or leave it... there is (effectively) no law of due process where I live, the authorities can pick you up, and detain you without trial indefinitely here (no, honestly they CAN). Yet has this resulted in some kind of police state filled with abuses of power in the past 1200 years that this island has stood in its current form??... ummm... no, no it hasnt (ok, thats ignoring the near 5 years the nazis occupied us, not reli our fault)... No we have a very tranquil little place with freedom coming out our eyeballs and a crime rate so low most governments would kill to achieve it.

Point = due process... NOT what its advertised to be, you can have a perfectly free and fair civil, society without it. ofc, I understand that to those in the US its a very important thing, and thats fine, fight against that part of the bills all you like... make it IP protections as ammended.

But on the point of the law to control IP, and allow IP owners tighter control of their property, then Im ALL for it, mainly because Im a creator of IP myself, as, I would have thought, are many here, so why wouldnt I want to see tols available to me, in any number of territories to help me protect those properties?

kadri
01-10-2012, 02:22 PM
So what you're saying is...
YOU had a vested interest in getting access to certain videos on youtube, so you took whatever steps were necessary to achieve this aim, disregarding what the law of your country had to say about it??
Just a person, pursuing their own self interest...

is it right?

Come on RebelHill you are not stupid you know what i mean :) This is about companies trying to protect their own interest without considering the need of other people. I would consider to have open such a forum like this if i had to be much more careful in the future. It is not if people,companies have such desires or not etc. it is about if it is right or not. By your argument fascism , dictatorship etc. is in the same league and normal.

There will be of course other "nice" things too in such bills ...how could they pass the important ones to them that nobody would wanted anything else.

The AKP party came step by step to power here with very naive and not very dangerous looking laws . like that there could not be pubs in the near(100 m?) of mosques . There are drunken people . They should not in the near of a mosque . And they can drink a little farther anyway. Yeah what is bad about this? Right (sarcasm)? This was nearly 30 years ago. Now they are changing little by little the system of education. Anyway...

It seems it is one of the problematic topics and i feel the eyes of SBowie who many will think that is a lovely too much tolerant LW moderator when these kind of bills will be accepted:D
Joke aside i am happy to see that the majority is against this . So there is hope:thumbsup:

erikals
01-10-2012, 02:31 PM
...But on the point of the law to control IP, and allow IP owners tighter control of their property, then Im ALL for it, mainly because Im a creator of IP myself, as, I would have thought, are many here, so why wouldnt I want to see tols available to me, in any number of territories to help me protect those properties?

absolutely!

wrench
01-10-2012, 02:41 PM
Cory Doctorow has posted a fine blog entry that looks at a larger impact of regulation: http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

B

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 02:52 PM
Come on RebelHill you are not stupid you know what i mean :) This is about companies trying to protect their own interest without considering the need of other people.

No, not at all...

I wasnt trying to suggest that the 2 things are one and the same... clearly the SCALE of action is very very different... but the basic principle isnt.

There's something you want, there's someone else who wants the exact opposite (or who's want conflicts with your own)... so whats the answer?

In many cases there's a compromise to be had, but many other times there isnt. So the only answer is basically to fight, and that involves both parties each trying to grab and hold onto as much as they possibly can for themselves.

Just because the "individual" attempting to grab as much in their own interest as possible happens to be a company doesnt make it any different, nor should they have any less right to act in their own interest than any other individual, group or anything else.

But again, you say its about these companies trying to protect their own interests, not caring about the needs of individuals people out there... but again...

how can downloading the latest movie/album/whatever without paying for it be considered a NEED that some evil corporation is trying to deny people??

Maybe very harsh penalties can be considered "wrong"... but thats up to congress/the legislature, NOT private companies... But how can those companies attempting to protect their property from theft, be considered to be in the wrong themselves??

wrench
01-10-2012, 02:55 PM
The problem is that this isn't just about "stopping" piracy. If passed it will allow non-elected companies to dictate what should be permissible on the Internet with no controls.

B

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 03:01 PM
No it wont... read it... it wont.

It WILL give them more power to find individual users, bring sites to book, etc.

Otherwise the same controls will exist as exist for any legislation, which is legal challenge, judicial review, etc, etc.

Ernest
01-10-2012, 04:10 PM
Im not american, so sopa, dmca, all of that doesnt apply to me in the slightest... soooo... Im in no danger of having any fundamental rights stripped away by such legislation.

Also, if I were, then Im not sure that being told "You cant steal" is really much of an affront to said fundamental liberty.

If that were the issue, then why don't they pass a law that says "You can't steal."?

Oh wait! They already did. It's the DMCA.

It seems that not everyone is aware of what SOPA is about. It's not that if someone uploads xmen3 to Youtube they can shut down that illegal xmen3 video. That's what the DMCA already does. Plus, it allows you to sue the uploader and ask the authorities to prosecute them. And we're all living happily with that. SOPA is about someone uploads xmen3 to Youtube and they can immediately shut down Youtube. Yes, brought to you by the same guys who uploaded their very own Viacom videos to Youtube in order to sue them for billions.

You think this is not about freedom of information because xmen3 is not information? Then how about someone uploads a copy of xmen3 to Facebook and they shut down Facebook? Care to tell the Egyptians that there is no information flow there?

Only a handful of radicals would oppose a law that can shut down the Pirate bay's domain. SOPA let's them shut down Torrentfreak and any site that speaks favorably about piracy, even if they have no links to pirated materials. It allows them to shut down any site that explains the technical workings of the bittorrent protocol, effectively making it impossible for any new game developer to compete with existing MMOs. It allows them to shut down any competitor's site until they can prove that they don't infringe.

Imagine if a major studio is releasing their $300M Thumbellina feature film (example used because I don't remember any Thumbellina movie). Then little Marty Macarroon in his mother's basement finishes his own, superior Thumbellina movie and announces that he'll release it on his website one day before the big one. The critics call Marty's the "greatest technical accomplishment since Jurassic Park," "the definitive version of the Thumbellina story," "Poetry in motion." One letter gets sent to Marty's ISP, one day before his public premiere. One month later, Marty's friends have gathered enough donations so that he can dispute the charges and explain that Thumbellina's name and plot are both public domain. He can now show up at the race after everyone else has crossed the finish line.

So you think it doesn't affect you because you're not in the US? It affects you exactly the same way as it affects everyone in the US!
For a US citizen, a Thai citizen, and a Burmese citizen the results are exactly the same: whatever you have to say cannot be accessed by anyone in the US or, because of the entry points used in most of Latin America, in most of the American continent.

You don't even have to host xmen3. You can just mention xmen3 and they can shut you down. Then you have to pay the legal fees to send the letters to prove that you were very obviously not infringing and wait a couple of weeks to get re-connected.

This is not about stopping xmen3 videos. There's already an app law for that. This is about stopping you and me from creating the next great original mutant superhero movie and self-publish on the Internet.

No judge has to say that your movie infringes. No DA has to agree that your movie infringes. No cop has to say that your movie infringes. Not even a lazy, underpaid government bureaucrat. Only your direct competitor has to say that your movie infringes and you're out. Good luck getting the buzz back up 2 weeks later!

There's a great (true) story about a German noble who was using his high office to spread justice at the detriment of some local landlords. One of those landlords accused his wife and daughter of witchcraft. And that was that. Game over.

jasonwestmas
01-10-2012, 04:39 PM
because the latest Xmen (or whatever other movie) is NOT information (at least not in the knowedge sense).

If Im missing the connection... its because there is no connection, other than in the production process itself.

Knowledge is required to make a movie, write a song, etc...

that movie/song whatever else, is a PRODUCT of knowledge... not knowledge itself.

Is hollywood trying to suppress access to information on how to make movies (thus eliminating indies and consolidating its position)??

No.

Thats the difference.

That's a strange definition of what is information and what is not. Fiction can be informative. Just because a narrative is imagined and hasn't actually happed in every way the movie goes doesn't mean it's not sending a message on a psychological level.

I gain knowledge about making films and what other people think about all the time by watching films. Therefore your argument seems invalid.

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 05:19 PM
First off... Jason, Im sorry, but your argument about what constitutes information is so thin that I can barely see it. Its not a strange definition of information, nor, much more importantly of PRODUCT... a movie is much more of a product than a piece of information... go buy a dictionary, please.... now you're just trying to make words fit the definition you want them to have to justify a nonsensical agenda (that it should be OK to download stuff for free because in your mind... thats feedom of information).

Ernest...

actually... it would seem that the alarmists have gotten hold of this sopa thing and blown it out of proportion, just like they did with the dmca funnily enough. And it is these folks, and those getting their info from youtube summaries, who dont seem to fully understand the proposed legislation.

No... sopa will NOT allow some company executive to order the immediate "offlining" of youtube, nor any other site, just because someone, somehwere uploads xmen (or whatever else) to it.

If youtube were being pebbledashed with such uploads, and were dragging its feet over taking them down, then it could be taken down...

Similarly, sites like 10starmovies, tvlinks, all of that stuff which is, lets be honest, NOTHING BUT pirate content ( a site who's sole aim is to facilitate directly or indirectly acts of infringement), then that CAN be blocked, taken down, whatever with near immediate effect.

This whole thing basically is not much different to the dmca at all (which like this, people predicted would be the end of freedom)... this just outlines harsher penalties, gives those acting against the pirates faster wheels to stop the merry go round of file, shut down, re-emerge, and brings in new details covering the online medication, and so on, already mentioned.

Read the legislation, you'll see.

probiner
01-10-2012, 05:22 PM
Probiner, are you for No Control of Anything, and No Laws or Regulations governing anything in the Internet? Or what"s your spin here? For sure Internet is a bit of wild west and there should be ways to fight unlawfull things. Thing is you can't regulate everything and put a repressive system in place, fire-and-forget... There are already tools in place to fight unlicenced distribution of copyrighted material. If further tools are needed fine, but this is not about it...


Some may like to think that unlicensed, unregulated snake oil sellers, or cheap knock off eqipment manufacturers are offering them some kind of "alternative"... but they're not... they are (again, self interested folk) preying of the stupidity of people who like to think such things, and whom are paranoid enough to think that anything officially licensed, approved, or regulated is part of some conspiracy.
Are you suggesting that people should be free to deal in counterfeit medications/products, to sell controlled medications/drugs without prescription or medical knowledge/oversight, so sell products that do not, or cannot perform the tasks they claim??
Yes, I'm also so for domestic violence, spouse cheating and house breaking, but if you put a camera in every house, my interest will fail...
Are you kidding me? That's the same rhetoric for War. "Ah... so you want that other guy that hates us to come here and kill us all, I see..."
That wording could easily be used against alternative medicine products... And there's also a thing called 'generics' these days...
Fear much? No chinese electic equipment in your house? It might catch fire...

Reading your statement it's like every preety "licensed product" delivers what the turd polishing advertisement says it will. And that brands and tags by themselves make things work.

The biggest snake oil sellers are the politicians with their press releases and economic solutions to pacify the markets...


But on the point of the law to control IP, and allow IP owners tighter control of their property, then Im ALL for it, mainly because Im a creator of IP myself, as, I would have thought, are many here, so why wouldnt I want to see tols available to me, in any number of territories to help me protect those properties?
Are we for IP violation? Is that what every single post in this thread against SOPA says? Quotes?

Maybe very harsh penalties can be considered "wrong"... but thats up to congress/the legislature, NOT private companies... But how can those companies attempting to protect their property from theft, be considered to be in the wrong themselves??
Maybe they should look on the mirror first or to who they are siding with? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc (again)

-Moral issue. Will this stop the act of piracy or counterfeit? No.
-Economic Issue. Will this put more money in the pockets of the rightfull owners? Maybe a bit more, with this economy, I doubt much.
-Precedent Issue. Will it be use outside of his scope or be premise for subsequent laws that will reduce freedom? Duh...

For me bottom line it's about having a good economy and let people have their money and invest it where they see fit.
If IP owners are hurting is not because of piracy, but because of there are few consumers with purchase power.
Cause there's a strange phenomenon that happens when people have money: the use it, be it on purchases or in savings that will boost the econmy.
Again, how many laws/real-measures were put in place to deal with the System and the causes of the economic crisis that is draining consumers' purchase power through inflation and austerity?
How many arrested in the private sector and public office for the practices that led to it.
It's all licensed alright; be it boom or bust, practice or condemn... Stifling dissent and competition.


Anyway, I'm never tired of this guy video rants. He makes always me laugh my way out :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsTRkd8RnTI

Cheers

jasonwestmas
01-10-2012, 05:28 PM
PRODUCT... a movie is much more of a product than a piece of information... go buy a dictionary, please.... now you're just trying to make words fit the definition you want them to have to justify a nonsensical agenda (that it should be OK to download stuff for free because in your mind... thats feedom of information).

Well you said product wasn't information, I said it was. I didn't think you would read into this this far but I guess you couldn't resist. I have an agenda? Well I can tell you it's not about freedom to steal. I think I was talking more about information censorship. I guess we're not as alike as you thought we are =).

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 05:39 PM
No Im not kidding... you cited these measures to block unlicensed drug suppliers, and suppliers of FAKE medicines, and controlled drugs without prescription as somehow "wrong"... so...???

Alternative medicine is often VERY bad stuff... contaminated with all sorts of crap. Take good ol traditional aruyvedic (or however the hell u spell it) medicine... arsenic, mercury, lead... there's an alternative treatment I cant wait to get my hands on.

And similarly, u mention generics... great... they're TESTED, LICENSED, and REGULATED... and there's NOTHING in either of these pieces of legislation (nor the recent, similar EU legislation, concerning products for human consumption, which garnered a host of similar, uninformed, its the end of freedom of choice arguments) to try and block access to them... READ THE LEGISLATION!!!!

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 05:42 PM
Well you said product wasn't information, I said it was. I didn't think you would read into this this far but I guess you couldn't resist. I have an agenda? Well I can tell you it's not about freedom to steal. I think I was talking more about information censorship. I guess we're not as alike as you thought we are =).

No, jason...

your argument seems to have been that movies (lets say art) = infomation, therefore attempts to block access to pirated artworks is tantamount to trying to control information...

If thats NOT your argument, and you dont advocate such things, then I fail to see where you're coming from, or what your point is.... because there is NOTHING, not one word in these proposals that makes any attempt to curb people access to information itself (information/guidance about how to go about committing illegal acts notwithstanding).

jasonwestmas
01-10-2012, 05:49 PM
No, jason...

your argument seems to have been that movies (lets say art) = infomation, therefore attempts to block access to pirated artworks is tantamount to trying to control information...

If thats NOT your argument, and you dont advocate such things, then I fail to see where you're coming from, or what your point is.... because there is NOTHING, not one word in these proposals that makes any attempt to curb people access to information itself (information/guidance about how to go about committing illegal acts notwithstanding).

Ok, I'll just hope for the best. It's still about censorship though, makes me nervous with or without evidence.

Thanks for explaining your thoughts.

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 05:53 PM
No worries, thanks for yours too... even if Im left a little uncertain as to what they were

probiner
01-10-2012, 06:00 PM
Alternative medicine is often VERY bad stuff...

Yes because compared with say, alchool, alternative medicine takes so many lives... How about prohibiting alchool. Oh wait...
Oh alternative stuff is soo about IP...

You keep pandering with "this does good" while tolerating the elephant in the room, for some reason...

So Infomation/knowledge is not under the copyright umbrella? Of course it is.

jasonwestmas
01-10-2012, 06:05 PM
The White Elephant being. . . the concept of censorship and the means to protect business with it by denying the right to see the so called stolen property? :)

RebelHill
01-10-2012, 06:20 PM
Well... Can I lay my hands on accurate statistics to prove it one way or the other... no.

But lets not forget that FAR more people consume alcohol than do alternative medicines (massively more) so you'd need to rebalance that statistic anyhow.

People HAVE indeed died as a result of taking unregulated so-called medicines that were contaminated with bacteria, toxic metals, etc... others from taking what they thought were real drugs that turned out to be counterfeit.... even more (quite a high proportion as it happens, the EC had a report comissioned year before last that I read) of folks "self medicating" on prescription drugs that they had no prescriptions for.

But death is only one side effect, you dont have to die to have health consequences. Just read up on colloidal silver (a very popular alternative) that doesnt make u better, just makes u sick...

and blue.

I too would like to know what this elephant Im tolerating is... the fact that info/knowledge come under copyright?? Thats what Ive been saying all along.

If its the concept of censorship, then no, I have no problem with the concept...

We dont allow penises to be shown on TV before a certain time.... thats censorship. We dont allow sweary words printed in national newspapers... thats censorship... and a good thing too, imo.

Attempting to silence (by hook or crook) a political opponent with different views... that too is censorship, and quite wrong... so censorship ITSELF isnt a problem... its how far one takes it.

But again, there's nothing Ive seen in these proposals that clearly aims to censor anything (guidance on how to do illegal things as I said not included)... There's stuff which at a stretch could vaguely be described as something akin to censorship, but thats it.

Anyhow, long chat, long argument, etc.

ive read the proposed legislations (rather than just watching youtube vids), and all Ive said is based off that. I admit, Ive not fine tooth combed them... so maybe Ive missed something.

Anyhow, I stand by all Ive said, and what Ive actually read in the actual docs...

If Im wrong on any counts, or Ive misunderstodd something... please... quote the appropriate paragraphs to me rather than continuing the dogma.

jasonwestmas
01-10-2012, 06:26 PM
Yeah that interesting you say that though Craig. I mean are these censors that happen on TV all the time really a LEAGALITY or is it just because people respect each others eyeballs for one reason or another?? I really never looked into it.

I think what I meant was the concept of LEGAL censorship not just respectful censorship. In other words is it actually illegal to show nudity on certain public channels during certain times of day? Sorry if I'm annoying anyone. I just find the psychology of law and information filtering fascinating.

Ernest
01-10-2012, 06:48 PM
Ernest...

actually... it would seem that the alarmists have gotten hold of this sopa thing and blown it out of proportion, just like they did with the dmca funnily enough. And it is these folks, and those getting their info from youtube summaries, who dont seem to fully understand the proposed legislation.

No... sopa will NOT allow some company executive to order the immediate "offlining" of youtube, nor any other site, just because someone, somehwere uploads xmen (or whatever else) to it.

If youtube were being pebbledashed with such uploads, and were dragging its feet over taking them down, then it could be taken down...
You're basing that on the definition of "Infringing site" that says that it has to be primarily designed and operated for the purpose of offering goods and services that infringe on intellectual property. That seems to mean that if that Youtube is safe.

But let's be pragmatic here. If the attorney general or any other impartial 3rd party was the only one sending take down notices, we could expect that definition to be enough. However, the "qualifying plaintiffs" are interested parties and it is up to them to determine which site qualifies. They don't need to go through any independent or impartial party before notifying the registrar and ISPs. The registrar and the ISPs don't have to verify the claims in the notification with any impartial 3rd party before taking action.

The definition of Infringing site offers no protection if a notification can be sent, and a site can be de-listed without the need for an impartial party evaluating the validity of the claim.

Yes, it allows offlining Youtube because the "qualifying plaintiffs" have already expressed in court that they see Youtube as a site designed and operated for the main purpose of exploiting copyrighted works. The court said it wasn't and they lost that case, but that was because they had to go through a court (an impartial 3rd party) before punishing the site.

If a few million dollars are on the line, I can personally evaluate almost any site as being primarily designed and operated with the purpose of infringing. You're saying that those company executives wouldn't?

RebelHill
01-11-2012, 03:21 AM
Jason, Yes... such items of censorship are enshrined in law... in GB and europe certainly... US I cant speak specifically, but Id be very surprised if it werent... afterall if there were no such law, you can guarantee that some tv exec would've plastered ur midday viewing with genitals just to get a ratings bump at some point, past or present.

We also have in law (which I know for a fact you dont) controls on how many minutes of advertising can be shown per hour of programming (a censor on advertisers). Thats why we get 2-3 commercial breaks during a programme, whilst you poor guys have them every 5-10 mins (at least on free to air channels). We also have laws prohibiting the advertising of junk food products during commercial breaks in childrens TV broadcasting. (hardly much of a victory for the big business interests of the multinationals like the mars, or coca cola corporations.... is it)

And yes (if ur wondering), I do think its right and proper that we have these items of censorship enforced by law.

Reason...

Well, its very easy to to say "censorship is wrong" as some kind of blanket statement, but thats a very weak idea that fails to take into account the complexities of things, and the good that censorship can achieve... and in these cases, it achieves a certain FREEDOM for the viewing public.

Because of this censorship, I am now FREE to watch the programmes I want to watch without having to be bombarded over and over with advertising for products I may well have no interest in. People across the land are FREE to know that they can leave their children infront of a tv set, unsupervised while they go off and do the vacuuming without the worry that they may be subjected to inappropriate imagery or language. (I said nudity, but the same laws cover depictions of violence, drug use, etc).

So in this case, and used properly, censorship does NOT impinge on personal freedoms of expression or consumption whatsoever... it INCREASES such freedoms.

Ernest...

Yes indeed... Now the legislation DOES NOT just drive a cart and horses through due process, what it does do is give IP owners a faster track to get takedowns served, because atm, pirate sites can respond far quicker than the legal process... surely we can all agree that SOMETHING needs to try and redress that balance, even if these specific measures arent quite it.

Now with the like of youtube, facebook, etc... These places dont have ISPs hosting their sites... they are their own ISPs, running their own server banks, with their own BACKBONE connections to the internet. It would require action by those who own the physical infrasructure (or military intervention) to just take them offline, boom, just like that.

Nothing to that extent is in the legislation either.

So Disney can say to google, Youtube is infringing take it down... google are then free to say, NO, we dont believe it is, and refuse the request... it then goes to court for adjudication.

And the same becomes true for smaller sites who DO have ISPs serving them.

The ISPs are free to look at the site in question, make THEIR own value judgement of what the site's contents constitute in terms of the law, and then take the appropriate action as set out by law.

The point here... is that IP owners are able to go directly to ISPs, and ISPs are FORCED to do SOMETHING without the lengthier process of seeking a court order and sending that to the ISP.

For instance, if an ISP were hosting a vide site, similar to youtube... a user uploaded something they shouldnt, then the ISP could go to the site owner, say... we've received this notification, ur site doesnt appear to be solely aimed at providing access to pirate content, but if you dont sort this issue NOW, then we're gonna have to take you down to protect, and indemnify our position... very sorry.

Then the ISP is fulfilling its legal obligations under these moves.

Basically... put simply... the legislation is attempting to make ISPs responsible for the kinda of sites they host... forcing the ISPs to do the task of policing pirate sites.

Is there an agenda to these measures.... sure.

But its not to try and shut down countless innocent, no real harm, websites... its to get infringing sites policed WITHOUT the need for the IP owners to PAY for that police force... thats all.

Also, pedro... Just wanted to clarify something, as I feel I may not have expressed myself properly...

I DO NOT have a problem with alternative medicines and the like... I think they're pretty much nonsense and a waste of money, but thats up to each individual buyer/user to decide for themselves.

What I DO have a problem with... is the mnufacturers of these products being UNREGULATED and free from scrutiny. Atm (in the US, no longer in europe) you can manufacture these things in totally unhygenic, unsanitary conditions, contaminating them with whatever the hell you like, from ebola, to plutonium, and still SELL it legally.

This legislation, like the similar passed in the EC a few months ago, will put a stop to that, and such producers will be forced to have quality control procedures in place no different to licensed drug makers, food producers, and so on.

You say access to alternative medicine products is about freedom to choose... and I agree. But where is a persons freedom to choose a SAFE product when there is no oversight or regulation on the manufacturers?

JCG
01-11-2012, 04:12 AM
Now with the like of youtube, facebook, etc... These places dont have ISPs hosting their sites... they are their own ISPs, running their own server banks, with their own BACKBONE connections to the internet. It would require action by those who own the physical infrasructure (or military intervention) to just take them offline, boom, just like that.

Nothing to that extent is in the legislation either.

So Disney can say to google, Youtube is infringing take it down... google are then free to say, NO, we dont believe it is, and refuse the request... it then goes to court for adjudication.

Sorry, I did not read the process outlined in the act that way. The notification is not sent to the ISP of the infringing site so that it takes responsibility for the sites it hosts. The notification is sent to the ISPs of every American family to not transmit traffic to or from that site.

Therefore, the ISPs have no incentive to burden themselves with the exorbitant costs of having a legal team check each claim. Those are not their sites. The only practical thing for an ISP to do would be to comply with every request and wait for the appeal.

Youtube is a rather extreme example, but under a SOPA attack, Google can continue broadcasting all they want. They would still be off the air if that broadcast does not travel the last mile into people's homes.

Nothing really wrong with that as long as the order comes from an elected official or a court of law, after hearing both parts. The problem with this act is that one part can issue the notices to the ISPs directly. No site can afford to go offline for a week or two while things get cleared up. For big sites, going offline for an hour would be chaotic.

That is why I'm against the bill; because it would be so easy to make it right. It even starts right and starts opening portholes around the middle. From my experience, every time an almost-good bill that opens a porthole is passed, it's because someone wants and will use that porthole. This bill did not need those dangerous portholes; it was almost good. For example, what does everyone think of the Online Protection & Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2011/12/text-of-online-protection-enforcement-of-digital-trade-act-alternative-to-sopa.html) as an alternative? It seems to address most of the same dangers and doesn't sacrifice due process.

RebelHill
01-11-2012, 05:17 AM
Yes, you're right, there are blanket blocking measures put in... but those are just access blocks, they do not remove/take down sites. (note here that this has been one of the agrued contentions, google, et al, saying "it cant be done/too difficult to manage"... someone responding saying "well you've managed it in china"... which ofc, the alarmists are trying to mislead people into believing that this same person is therefore advocating state cesorship for america on a par with china... which, he is not... put short, this whole alarmist nonsense about how this will destroy freedom of this that or the other is just that, nonsense).

Now, am I particularly concerned that say, my site, could wind up being blocked so as folks living in the US are unable to get access to it... not hugely, no. Ofc, Id rather it not happen, but if it were to, oh well, no biggie, plenty of world out there.

Ofc... it also depends how much of the bill makes it through unammended... and even if it does, a lot rides on future interpretation. There is argument I see, some of it quite well founded that aspects of the bill may be unconstitutional. If thats the case, then what will happen is what always happens... small guys wont be able to do much to protect/defend themselves, but much sooner rather than later, someone big (probably google in this instance) will go to the supreme court, ahve the measures declared unconstitutional, and that'll be that, they'll take care of the little guys too.

But even IF all the bad talk about what the bill could mean were to make it through... it probably wouldnt last long.

There've been many "doomsday" crying about what a given piece of legislation will mean over decades (centuries) in the US, and elsewhere... and none of them have ever proven true... I doubt this'll turn out much different in the long run.

gerry_g
01-11-2012, 07:21 AM
Is this America we are talking about, the country that pirated every intellectual property it could lay it's hands on the last century ( even Tolkien had to sue them over the Hobbit and that was in the sixties) my my how things have changed

RebelHill
01-11-2012, 07:46 AM
yes, very true... Hollywood itself was founded on piracy... or more spcifically patent infringement of movie camera technology.

But one can also argue that because you have punched someone in the past, does not mean that people should in future be allowed to punch you with impunity.

probiner
01-11-2012, 07:53 AM
Well apparently some ppl are allowed to punch others in the face all the time.
Either when it's their turn, or when it someone else's turn... Smart, to say the least...

jasonwestmas
01-11-2012, 08:14 AM
Jason, Yes... such items of censorship are enshrined in law... in GB and europe certainly... US I cant speak specifically, but Id be very surprised if it werent... afterall if there were no such law, you can guarantee that some tv exec would've plastered ur midday viewing with genitals just to get a ratings bump at some point, past or present.

We also have in law (which I know for a fact you dont) controls on how many minutes of advertising can be shown per hour of programming (a censor on advertisers). Thats why we get 2-3 commercial breaks during a programme, whilst you poor guys have them every 5-10 mins (at least on free to air channels). We also have laws prohibiting the advertising of junk food products during commercial breaks in childrens TV broadcasting. (hardly much of a victory for the big business interests of the multinationals like the mars, or coca cola corporations.... is it)

And yes (if ur wondering), I do think its right and proper that we have these items of censorship enforced by law.

Reason...

Well, its very easy to to say "censorship is wrong" as some kind of blanket statement, but thats a very weak idea that fails to take into account the complexities of things, and the good that censorship can achieve... and in these cases, it achieves a certain FREEDOM for the viewing public.

Because of this censorship, I am now FREE to watch the programmes I want to watch without having to be bombarded over and over with advertising for products I may well have no interest in. People across the land are FREE to know that they can leave their children infront of a tv set, unsupervised while they go off and do the vacuuming without the worry that they may be subjected to inappropriate imagery or language. (I said nudity, but the same laws cover depictions of violence, drug use, etc).

So in this case, and used properly, censorship does NOT impinge on personal freedoms of expression or consumption whatsoever... it INCREASES such freedoms.



Oh I definitely see your point about that and if I was an optimist about human Judgement in America regarding the subjective nature of visual content I'd be for it. You see, I believe there is much more power in discussion between friends than there is through voting for a political group of strangers to make decisions for us. That's a huge can of worms to talk about but there it is.

I personally think the (not THE answer but part of it) answer lies in technology that enables the freedoms to choose. The freedom to choose what is harmful and what is not (Like choosing to either open or close your door on a stranger) is another freedom I support. Not that I would want a bunch of Trash playing 24-7 on my TV but filtering technology that is designed democratically so we can in fact block anything with a certain rating. Using the rating as a guide and not a gospel truth.

As I've kinda expressed before. . . censorship is fine when regulated within a family, friend or business conversation setting. . . it's the idea of it in the hands of a few Gov't authorities that I'm not in favor of regardless of the circumstance. And if something is illegal we can just report it and do things in a better way I think. I'm not a politician so I'm not going to explain how that would work through the Law in a more modern way. =) Laws and following the rulez I believe is dumbing us down because we sometimes rely on the red tape more than educating ourselves and other people.

fazi69
01-11-2012, 08:38 AM
Probiner, are you for No Control of Anything, and No Laws or Regulations governing anything in the Internet? Or what"s your spin here?

It is nice to see that german spirit is still out there :-) Nothing seams to be changing there at all. This love for state control and regulations is main theme in german controled EU.

jasonwestmas
01-11-2012, 08:39 AM
It is nice to see that german spirit is still out there :-) Nothing seams to be changing there at all. This love for state control and regulations is main theme in german controled EU.

Yikes. . .got links?

fazi69
01-11-2012, 08:42 AM
Yikes. . .got links?

Links ? I do not get this one.

jasonwestmas
01-11-2012, 08:43 AM
lol. .you know information? Everyone always thinks I'm making joke.

RebelHill
01-11-2012, 08:47 AM
Fazi... are u suggesting that in times of economic turmoil that germany would try to take over europe, and that (perhaps) the french would just fall over and take it, whilst the british stamp and rant and refuse to have any of it??

I cant imagine where you'd get such ideas (;

SBowie
01-11-2012, 08:51 AM
This is obviously a potentially contentious thread. Despite its clear relevance to a community of artists, it could easily fall afoul of the moderation policy on political arguments. Just as easily, it could dredge up stereotypes that can be personally offensive to individuals, or turn ugly in any number of other ways.

To this point, a substantial measure of mutual respect has kept the thread from spinning up into something unseemly and inappropriate. It will take considerable individual restraint, consideration, and tolerance for the expression of dissenting views for this commendable state to be maintained. Let's be careful how we phrase things, and equally careful not to overreact when responding, please. (Note, I'm not singling anyone out for criticism here, just seeing a storm front on the horizon and suggesting we sail carefully).

RebelHill
01-11-2012, 08:55 AM
Speaking for mysefl only steve... I hear u.

EU in-jokes aside I think we've got a quite productive thread here, at least from a debate point of view... though if I may make one small argument re the moderation policy...

no religion...
no politics...

just a discussion of the law, and legal norms.

(oh god, ive just risked turning this into a "how do politics differ from the law itself?" philosophical thread havent I... lets not talk about that).

jasonwestmas
01-11-2012, 08:59 AM
Speaking for mysefl only steve... I hear u.

EU in-jokes aside I think we've got a quite productive thread here, at least from a debate point of view... though if I may make one small argument re the moderation policy...

no religion...
no politics...

just a discussion of the law, and legal norms.

(oh god, ive just risked turning this into a "how do politics differ from the law itself?" philosophical thread havent I... lets not talk about that).

haha, awesome. . .I think we should steer clear of how State Gov't worship can turn into X thinking. That's right probably shouldn't talk about it.

SBowie
01-11-2012, 09:03 AM
EU in-jokes aside I think we've got a quite productive thread here, at least from a debate point of view... Yes, the main problem is that humour doesn't always identify itself as such very well across cultural and luinguistic domains - especially in text.

jasonwestmas
01-11-2012, 09:04 AM
This is obviously a potentially contentious thread. Despite its obvious relevance to a community of artists, it could easily fall afoul of the moderation policy on political arguments. Just as easily, it could dredge up stereotypes that can be personally offensive to individuals, or turn ugly in any number of other ways.

To this point, a substantial measure of mutual respect has kept the thread from spinning up into something unseemly and inappropriate. It will take considerable individual restraint, consideration, and tolerance for the expression of dissenting views for this commendable state to be maintained. Let's be careful how we phrase things, and equally careful not to overreact when responding, please. (Note, I'm not singling anyone out for criticism here, just seeing a storm front on the horizon and suggesting we sail carefully).

Yes, we will try not to read into things too much. . .as that is the usual cause of flame warz ime.

jasonwestmas
01-11-2012, 09:06 AM
The flip side to the above is that too much ambiguity (blanket statements) encourages irrational assumption.

fazi69
01-11-2012, 09:11 AM
Fazi... are u suggesting that in times of economic turmoil that germany would try to take over europe, and that (perhaps) the french would just fall over and take it, whilst the british stamp and rant and refuse to have any of it??

I cant imagine where you'd get such ideas (;

Where I suggest that ?
I only say that living near Germany (and knowing history well) I can observe that German people are very smart and hardworking but there is a little problem with that. They almost hive like mentality is always more concern about state than personal freedom or wellbeing of the neighbor . State is, like for Japanese, in the first place. If authorities say that some draconian laws are needed there is almost no protests !
Can Germany be dangerous in time of crisis ? Of course, like any other country where is the industrial base and politicians who want to distract people from the problems they created. It is simple mechanism of control. In time of war people always gather behind flag. But I do not suggest that this will happen.

As far as UK is concern, what You can see now in EU is not some " refusing to have any of it" as guarding special interests of "London City". ( this center of banking speculations and Madof`s like operations )
If You think that Cameron is guarding British people against anything You have another thing coming.

Don`t get me wrong people, last thing I want is to say anything bad against Germany as a nation ( even having cruel history in my memory ) I love their cars, have few friends there and even work for one :-) ( not to mention wurst and beer :-)
It is this one character flaw that make them OBEY anything .... this tendency to put state in the firs place and mistake it with patriotism. It is something that all Slavic people just can`t understand and for true Americans will be probably as alien as for me.

---
No more politics from me, sorry SBowie.

RebelHill
01-11-2012, 09:12 AM
Yes, the main problem is that humour doesn't always identify itself as such very well across cultural and luinguistic domains - especially in text.

I know I know... but us euros are pretty used to ripping each other without taking offence these days I think... be that the robo-germans, tax dodging greeks, or yes, even us pompous, superior, stuck up, anal, know-it-all brits.

une merde, une merde, cabrón, cabrón.

:tongue:

RebelHill
01-11-2012, 09:15 AM
this tendency to put state in the firs place and mistake it with patriotism.

well, now we're drifting waaaay off topic... but I certainly wouldnt say that..

Merkel comes along, says, we need to bail out greece, spain, italy, etc...

German people were having NONE of it so far as Ive seen.

and good on em too.

probiner
01-11-2012, 10:05 AM
Well it's hard to discuss these things without going into politics; which were set to be the responsible for the rules of society we live by and drive nations; especially when it comes to easing power to supress and retaliate, while leaving the global picture behind, and fail to question why such actions are needed in first place and the possible bad consequences (the good ones everybody wants...). Again, haven't the last decade alone thaught us something?
(Just to i (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-4-2010/i-give-up---9-11-responders-bill)ll (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-16-2010/worst-responders)us (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-july-28-2011/i-thought-we-already-took-care-of-this-s--t)tr (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-26-2011/friends-without-benefits)ate, in 2010/11 US congress was going through hoops to pass the Zadroga bill, that would give 9/11 first responders healthcare aid for chronical issues related to that terrible day... While wars were done in it's name...)

so anyhoo... I leave it here. http://www.skype-emoticons.com/images/emoticon-00139-bow.gif

Good spirits

SBowie
01-11-2012, 10:20 AM
... even us pompous, superior, stuck up, anal, know-it-all brits.Self-deprecation, sadly, is not a universal virtue.

rcallicotte
01-11-2012, 10:56 AM
What I was saying (to get back in the drift of SOPA or No SOPA) about the U.S. Constitution is that the goal was to have real freedoms while maintaining order. Whether we took from other systems or not is a moot point - we did. But, the founder of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights really did have an eclectic mix of a variety of genius.

That said, it seems to me that any law should always be to enforce what is by nature the residing flow of how things are - people create so should be able to create and should (I believe) have full rights to their creation(s). Certain amounts of freedom to take this creation and use it for - education, comic relief, general dialogue -- these should all be considered common sense. I would want no one taking my hard work on a graphic or whatever and using it for their personal gain without my consent. This could be regulated and probably should be.

But it sounds like SOPA is making sweeping statements about any situation wherein something created is utilized and that is never a good thing.

jasonwestmas
01-11-2012, 11:02 AM
I think it's dangerous to assume common sense and value is universal though. Psychology is important too. =)

RebelHill
01-11-2012, 11:09 AM
I think it's dangerous to assume common sense and value is universal though.

ne'er a truer word spoken.

beverins
01-11-2012, 11:36 AM
The thing is, SOPA and Protect IP DO matter to people outside of the USA because, if someone decides that your site (let's say RebelHill's plugin site) has "infringing material" the site will lose its DNS resolution (and let's be actual here - there will be NO judicial or oversight review to see if the claim has ANY merit - it will take Rebelhill's time and energy and money to attempt to clear it up all on his own). The site will still have the IP address, I suppose, so it's still "there" but you'd have to know the address at that point.

Wait - DNS resolution? Yes, SOPA will actually call upon the ROOT DOMAINS to DELETE the DNS entries for infringing sites. That's hugely bad just on a general schema, not even getting into piracy issues. And all it takes is for ONE call to kill it. ONE call, no oversight. Do some convincing with cleverly worded letters to various people of interest that the site is infringing and its gone. False accusation? NO PENALTY.

Also, what will happen because of this is that people will start making their own DNS root servers. Lots of them will pop up, maybe even using IPV6 or even unused variants and we will have thousands of "internets" (Bush was prophetic after all) on which far worse than Copyright Infringement will be occurring. Then what? Pres. Obama's "Kill Switch"? Made completely useless. Tracking people by their IP? How will you do that if people make their own networks?

RebelHill
01-11-2012, 12:34 PM
Maybe, maybe not, taht depends on the individual...

But as I said a page or 2 back, for my OWN part... not that big a deal.

If I got blocked, then it would ONLY be internet users in the US who'd be unable to access my site (at least by its "given name"). Would that be ideal, would I welcome it?? Of course not, but would it be that big a deal to me, no not at all. As I said before, there's an awful lot of world out there that isnt the USA.

erikals
01-11-2012, 12:43 PM
usually doesn't take long for EU to pick up on that idea though...

remember when they wanted to charge for every email that was sent btw?...

Dexter2999
01-11-2012, 12:48 PM
A guy I used to work with used to say, "Why is it called common sense when it seems so rare?"

The problem with assumptions (aside from the saying) of common sense is that down the road people tend to stick to "letter of the law" and common sense is tossed out the window because it doesn't lend itself to being supportable/defensible in a court of law when tangential changes arise...in other words it can seem arbitrary. And rather than individuals taking personal liability/responsibility they take the easier route and just stick to the letter of the law.

jasonwestmas
01-11-2012, 12:50 PM
A guy I used to work with used to say, "Why is it called common sense when it seems so rare?"

The problem with assumptions (aside from the saying) of common sense is that down the road people tend to stick to "letter of the law" and common sense is tossed out the window because it doesn't lend itself to being supportable/defensible in a court of law when tangential changes arise...in other words it can seem arbitrary. And rather than individuals taking personal liability/responsibility they take the easier route and just stick to the letter of the law.

Yes, indeedy. It's not really good to let the law think for us, it's a guide, nothing more.

RebelHill
01-11-2012, 12:55 PM
usually doesn't take long for EU to pick up on that idea though...

remember when they wanted to charge for every email that was sent btw?...

Well like you, my dear Norwegian friend... Im not in the EU. (though i am an EU citizen with all rights of work, travel, etc... yeah, I know, twisted up backwards constitutional situation here).

RebelHill
01-11-2012, 12:56 PM
Yes, indeedy. It's not really good to let the law think for us, it's a guide, nothing more.

the code is more like guidelines reli... yarrr

erikals
01-11-2012, 12:59 PM
well, we got EØS, which is basically EU Lite... :]

RebelHill
01-11-2012, 01:04 PM
ooh... i wasnt aware of that.

Awesome, something new to go learn...

see ya!

Lightwolf
01-11-2012, 01:07 PM
usually doesn't take long for EU to pick up on that idea though...
At least when it comes to blocking on the DNS level, that idea is gone for now (not because of copyright infringements but child pornography sites).

Time to get a unique IP for the web server? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

jasonwestmas
01-11-2012, 01:25 PM
the code is more like guidelines reli... yarrr

haha no not like that. My point is that no law can teach someone how to do what is right, only tell you what yer doing wrong.

Ernest
01-11-2012, 03:11 PM
There've been many "doomsday" crying about what a given piece of legislation will mean over decades (centuries) in the US, and elsewhere... and none of them have ever proven true... I doubt this'll turn out much different in the long run.

Right. None of them have ever proven true... except ALL those that have really proven true.

So many people act like China and Iran are fictional dystopias made up to scare people with impossible extreme futures. Those are real countries with real people living doomsday pieces of legislation right now. Afghanistan? Was there some strange alignment of the stars when Stalin started to gather power that makes it such a unique and otherworldly experience? I don't know if you'd consider this as "doomsday", but one single piece of temporary emergency legislation, passed during a crisis that really seemed to call for emergency legislation, did end up with Daniel Day Lewis and all his family wasting their lives in jail. As you said, eventually someone would "right the injustice", but who cares about a public apology if you can't get your life or your family back? What about the Internet blacklist law in Australia? They assured and reassured everyone that it was only to block child abuse sites. However, they created a black list of sites that would be blacked out from Australia and did not show the list to anyone. How many blocked political sites have been denounced since then?

What if patent law, another IP protection law, worked like SOPA? Apple asked for any black, rectangular Samsung devices to be banned from the market right before the Holiday sales started. They requested it to a court and the court denied it. What if they could have sent the take-down order directly to the electronics stores or the ports where Samsung phones arrive? Complete market dominance in one single legal document.

If you sell your own IP, the US is really close to being half the world.

RebelHill
01-11-2012, 04:11 PM
Well... the laws laid down by the stalinist regime, communist china, the former afghanistan, etc, arent really correct comparisons.

Laws laid down under those systems were very clearly tyrannical, despotic laws who's sole purpose was clearly to repress... no clever wording about it.

Im talking about normal legislation acts, in normalised, civil societies, where time and again, people have leapt to alarmist conclusions about how terribly the law is going to play out, and how its providing some evil clique some backdoor to despotism.

Things like the patriot act... which was gonna see Mr Singh from the bakery sent to guantanamo cos he was buying more flour than might be considered necessary... or Sr Hernandez... cos some dope couldnt tell the difference between an arab and a mexican...

Did it happen? did america become a police state?? no.

Or the riot act of england (long since repealed), that was going to destroy free speech, and again, see "complainers" locked in the tower... Never happened.

How about the welfare act... which was gonna destroy the country by basically giving everyone reason to stay home and claim the dole rather than get a job??

Its pretty easy to see where laws are aimed when they're written by the likes of mrs hitler, stalin, or mao... but things like this, like previous laws in our good ol, democratic countries, that to some appear like we're all about to lose our freedoms or rights, ultimately... do not pan out that way. (though there may be the odd, and very rare occasion where one does go that way, it doesnt last long).

The problem is not that some dont believe that iran or china exist... its that some people are so ridiculously paranoid that they seem to think america, or europe, is gonna just do a 180 and turn into them in the space of a few years.

That, ofc, is not to say they couldnt... anything CAN happen... but I think it would take some unimaginably calamitous event, and/or several generations of time to trigger and complete. You only have to look back at our countries adn their histories to see a slow progression toward more, and more, and more freedom, and equality.

Votes for women.
Rights for blacks.
Marriage for gays.

Democratic choice and freedoms are so intrinsically linked to our societies, and ways of life that it would really take something gargantuan to be able to redirect this river... god knows, people have tried, and failed.

Oh, and on that last point, no... If you look up revenues for IP products, music, movies, literature, across territories, over time... You'll find that, on average, the US accounts for about 15-20% of the global market.

Nowhere NEAR half.

But, y'know... u can always go and try telling that "u need america to sell to" argument to bollywood... If u like.

RebelHill
01-11-2012, 04:31 PM
What if patent law, another IP protection law, worked like SOPA? Apple asked for any black, rectangular Samsung devices to be banned from the market right before the Holiday sales started. They requested it to a court and the court denied it. What if they could have sent the take-down order directly to the electronics stores or the ports where Samsung phones arrive? Complete market dominance in one single legal

Ok... now... THIS IS THE BIG ONE.

Please listen carefully ALL... I dont wanna sound like angry man :cursin: but the statement made above, and those others like it are a COMPLETE FALSIFICATION of ANYTHING contained in SOPA...

There is no provision that allows any private company to order the "cut-off" (of any fashion) of any website... NONE AT ALL!!!!

These orders MUST.... MUST come from the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT/ATTORNEY GENERAL, and be the subject of a COURT ORDER!!!!

This whole "it gives business powers above the law/courts/due process"... is A LIE!!!!

Here's the bill...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

READ IT!!!!

Find me one paragraph, sentence word... ANYTHING in there that grants these powers to private companies.

All this bill does is extend powers already available to the justice department, allow them to act quicker... allow them to actually block the sites from being accessed (since take downs cant be ordered outside US borders).. and contains additional provisions to tackle counterfeit goods and products.

Ernest
01-11-2012, 04:44 PM
You did not read far down enough. It starts all rosy-peachy with attorney general this and attorney general that until you start to doze off. Then on all the actions that the ISPs have to comply with... they have to show due diligence to the extent of their abilities in blocking sites when they receive a notification from "qualifying plaintiffs". Not from a court. Not from the attorney general. From "qualifying plaintiffs".

RebelHill
01-11-2012, 04:56 PM
Yes, they have to show "due dilligence" when responding to such things in order to secure indemnity for themselves... but it is NOT a legal obligation on them to do whatever they're told/asked to by the plaintiff.

Enforcement is still the domain of the justice department... the IPS do not HAVE to do anything, other than give the request a fair read, and consideration.

Due dilligence, in this vein... means that the ISP must take a look at the material/site/whatever, and if it is clearly a pirate endeavor then it must act in order to fulfil its obligations under law.

Attempting to characterise this as the plaintiff having "the power" is no different than saying that when u hit someone else's car, that their requesting of your insurance info/registration/whatever, is riding over your rights to privacy, and ignoring your right to due process... it is NOT... it is an obligation placed on you by law to provide such things.

probiner
01-11-2012, 05:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80IphtHrFzg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFL4L-L7wJA
Yeah, Youtube videos, go figure...

RebelHill
01-12-2012, 05:34 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80IphtHrFzg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFL4L-L7wJA
Yeah, Youtube videos, go figure...

Well yes, ofc there's stuff like that on there too, video documents of actual process/parliaments/congress. Its quite a different thing to the "facts" you see presented by the "youtubers" who dont seem to actually backup what they're saying with actual examples (in this case of whats actually WRITTEN in the bill).

Tbh, this is largely the problem with the internet as a whole in a way... Any idiot can put up a page, or video conveying completely inaccurate information, whilst a similar page can be put up by someone else containing accurate and verifiable info, but both get the same platform of exposure, and an equal opportunity to be heard.

Now one can argue that simply represents a TRULY open and unconstrained public debate, but its not hard to see how debate without some framework of accuracy produces a complete chaos of conflicting information.

Imagine for example if this same system existed in schools, or universities, where any moron could wander in and give a lecture on history, or physics, or any other subject... Surely no-one would argue that it were a good thing for the students to be exposed to such a "debate" of ideas.

Lightwolf
01-12-2012, 05:43 AM
Imagine for example if this same system existed in schools, or universities, where any moron could wander in and give a lecture on history, or physics, or any other subject... Surely no-one would argue that it were a good thing for the students to be exposed to such a "debate" of ideas.
...erm.. intelligent design anyone? ;)

Just saying... a lot of people apparently think that such an exposure is a good idea.

Cheers,
Mike

RebelHill
01-12-2012, 05:56 AM
Well, I dont have much of a problem with intelligent design being taught in science class... jsut so long as evolution can be taught in sunday school/from the pulpit.

To an extent I do think its a good idea to teach, what can seem to many, as utterly preposterous views... whether that be intelligent design, right wing facism, or any other such thing. if they're not taught and explored, how is anyone able to see and properly understand their inherent problems.

i think its just as bad to teach "this is wrong, end of, ignore it" as it is to teach "this is right, end of, believe it"... but the problem is if you keep going too far down that line you find yourself going in a complete circle, and whilst this might help people to understand the fundamental natures of learning and knowledge itself, it prevents that learning from progressing and expanding.

jburford
01-12-2012, 08:07 AM
It is nice to see that german spirit is still out there :-) Nothing seams to be changing there at all. This love for state control and regulations is main theme in german controled EU.


I am not German, I am an American living in Germany.... And yes, the Censorship here is flipin crazy.... However, allowing no respect to the law and allowing all Sites to do all things is imo not correct....

If it is, then I need to start downloading the entire TurboSquid Content Library, and put it up on a Site of mine with the purpose of me selling it and passing around. And, if anyone says it should not be allowed or should be put offline, I will yell that that is Censorship. (and yes, the German controlled EU, needs to be stopped).

jburford
01-12-2012, 08:17 AM
Anyways, lots of good reading here . . . .

Good to see that it is not going off board!

jasonwestmas
01-12-2012, 08:58 AM
Well, I dont have much of a problem with intelligent design being taught in science class... jsut so long as evolution can be taught in sunday school/from the pulpit.

To an extent I do think its a good idea to teach, what can seem to many, as utterly preposterous views... whether that be intelligent design, right wing facism, or any other such thing. if they're not taught and explored, how is anyone able to see and properly understand their inherent problems.

i think its just as bad to teach "this is wrong, end of, ignore it" as it is to teach "this is right, end of, believe it"... but the problem is if you keep going too far down that line you find yourself going in a complete circle, and whilst this might help people to understand the fundamental natures of learning and knowledge itself, it prevents that learning from progressing and expanding.

That's exactly right. Plus, I deny the idea that making mistakes needs to be frowned upon in the sense that we should some how baby proof the world and rid the world of trial and error. Baby proofing is up to parents to do with their children. . . not typical full grown adults and there is so much to be learned by exploring the unknown.

RebelHill
01-12-2012, 10:32 AM
Back onto the topic of SOPA... (at least for a little bit)...

I was discussing this whole shenanigan with a buddy at lunch, who's main question to me was... "why do u give a flying fig about a yank law that doesnt affect you??"

Good question. But the answer is simple.

Its cos I care some for my fellows in this whole creative industry, and here's what I mean.

SOPA, is another attempt to grab tighter control of IP for IP owners through a legal mechanism (Im sure we all got that much). Now you'd think that all of us in the creative indusries, who make, and own IP would be in favour of it... but look around the net, and you'll see (like the first few pages of this thread), a large amount of opposition.

Seems nuts right??

Well the opposition has come SOLELY from the plain, and (i think) dishonest MISREPRESENTATION of what is actually WRITTEN in SOPA.

sopa will let big business just order take downs/blocks with no legal oversight... NOT TRUE.

sopa weill somehow choke off peoples ownership of their own IP, or make it harder for folks to share information freely... NOT TRUE.

What these misrepresentations have effectively done is to get a whole bunch of folks who create or own IP to rally against a proposed law that seeks to protect your ownership of that IP.

You're basically being CONNED into arguing against, and opposing your own interests.

No, really... lets go back and look at that "vague" definition of "qualified plaintiffs"...

Sec 103 (a) (2)
QUALIFYING PLAINTIFF- The term `qualifying plaintiff' means, with respect to a particular Internet site or portion thereof, a holder of an intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in paragraph (1) occurring on that Internet site or portion thereof.

Guess what... that means YOU!!!!

Have you created an original IP that you own the rights to?? If the answers YES, then congratulations... YOU are now a qualifying plaintiff under this law.

This entitles you to serve notice that you have a good faith belief that your IP is being infringed by "someone", and gives you the right to be listened, and responded to appropriately.

If you're ignored, then it allows you to seek a COURT ORDER which creates a legal obligation (if the court agrees with you ofc) to force the infringer to decist, or for ISPs to block/remove the infringing content on your behalf.

Or... you may refer the matter (ie, complain) to the justice department, and let the attorney general take care of it all for you. Ofc, thats up to the discretion of the JD to decide if your complaint warrants their intervention on your behalf or not.

So please... for your OWN GOOD... reject the "opinion" being spilled all over YT/blogs... read the act FOR YOURSELVES to discover its ACTUAL content and language, and then decide... does this protect me, or threaten me... and make your judgement of support or opposition on those facts.

erikals
01-12-2012, 10:36 AM
...erm.. intelligent design anyone? ;)

i love the "intelligent falling" "theory" http://erikalstad.com/backup/anims.php_files/hammer.gif

warmiak
01-12-2012, 01:46 PM
......
What these misrepresentations have effectively done is to get a whole bunch of folks who create or own IP to rally against a proposed law that seeks to protect your ownership of that IP.

You're basically being CONNED into arguing against, and opposing your own interests.
....


This bill will essentially force Internet Providers to filter DNS queries for all customers - as far as I am concerned , that's enough right there to kill it.

RebelHill
01-12-2012, 02:30 PM
Id agree with that interpretation based on my own reading of it sure...

What I dont get is why you'd think that a problem though? The filtering/blocking is simply to try and restrict access to sites not hosted within US borders (since those inside can simply be taken down)... so to that extent it treats ISPs like electronic harbours/airports/border crossings.

Now I can certainly see why ISPs may not want to have the workload dumped on them to manage such things, but at the end of the day, someone's gotta carry the can, right? And surely the ISPs are the most efficient candidates for that?

Unless one is meaning it the sense of "filtering all traffic"... which isnt my interpretation, I only see that they would be required to filter specific sites from a certain list.

Try phoning the emergency services (911 equivalent) from outside the host country of that service... you cant... its pre filtered out, but ALL phone traffic is not.

How is this essentially any differnt from that.

Lito
01-12-2012, 02:47 PM
No SOPA or Protect IP. Why?

1) Wording of section 201 is so broad. An applicable example to this forum, you using capture program to make a video tutorial using Lightwave and post it to the net. That can be considered copyright infringement unless Newtek grants you the right to do it. Newtek could say you are infringing by using the Lightwave interface in the video tutorial. Then write a letter to paypal and pull them off your site. A few game publishers are preparing to allow filming and broadcasting of their games to their EULA in case SOPA/ProtectIP passes. This could be a future revenue stream if you think about it for Adobe, Autodesk etc... You can't make a training video without paying a licensing fee for the right to record the interface or you'd be blacklisted from all US customers. (Specifically 201a `(a) `(1) `(C))

2) The attorney general does NOT have to be involved when sending notices to stop advertisers or payment processors from working with a site accused by a qualifying plaintiff. Section 103 a(2)-b.

3) As worded by Section 103 d(5) - Immunity - This is worded such that as a advertiser or payment processor, you are immune from being sued should you take action against the accused site. But the way it's worded is if they don't comply, it isn't defined, so they will most likely be sued. Any payment processor or advertiser would comply from such a notice from anyone. They have nothing to lose by complying and possibly everything to lose if they don't.

4) The great US internet blacklist - won't stop piracy, people will just get around it with direct IP addresses, and/or third party DNS servers. Making the internet less safe for all. Also possibly breaks DNSSEC http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Did-Comcast-Just-Admit-They-Cant-Comply-With-SOPA-117822

Just say NO.

Ernest
01-12-2012, 05:47 PM
You're not seeing the real danger!

It's not about the destruction of the Internet

It's not about the destruction of freedom and justice

It's about League of Legends (http://torrentfreak.com/congressman-fears-that-sopa-may-kill-his-league-of-legends-addiction-120112/)!!!

HenrikSkoglund
01-13-2012, 03:27 AM
It's a bit like what notch is writing here: http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/01/12/notch-no-sane-person-can-be-for-sopa/
"Sacrificing freedom of speech for the benefit of corporate profit is abominable and disgusting."

RebelHill
01-13-2012, 04:12 AM
Almost the very first line in the "preamble" of sopa states that nothing in the legislation shall affect in any way first amendment rights to freedom of speech, etc.

Lito, some good arguments and points there... Im gonna give a re-read of those sections later, cheers.

wibly wobly
01-14-2012, 08:17 AM
If you don't think something like this will be ripe with abuse, just look at the baby version, that is the DMCA. They've already abused that one a lot and it's pretty tame compared to the two coming down the pipe. Someone will abuse it. Block things they don't want you to see, not just with IP, kill rival startups or competitors. Personal liberties have eroded a lot since 9/11. I wouldn't put it past some large securities industry to try and push technology like this to other uses. Look at the Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act for ideas.

I can't trust the people that are pushing for this because of what the US music / movie guys have been doing for years. Take for instance what's recently happened with the TVShack creator and things like this. http://www.businesspost.ie/?_escaped_fragment_=story/Home/News/Music%20industry%20launches%20new%20High%20Court%2 0action%20against%20state/19410615-5218-4f0d-74f6-ef0c79393950#!story/Home/News/Music%20industry%20launches%20new%20High%20Court%2 0action%20against%20state/19410615-5218-4f0d-74f6-ef0c79393950

jasonwestmas
01-14-2012, 10:01 AM
If you don't think something like this will be ripe with abuse, just look at the baby version, that is the DMCA. They've already abused that one a lot and it's pretty tame compared to the two coming down the pipe. Someone will abuse it. Block things they don't want you to see, not just with IP, kill rival startups or competitors. Personal liberties have eroded a lot since 9/11. I wouldn't put it past some large securities industry to try and push technology like this to other uses. Look at the Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act for ideas.

I can't trust the people that are pushing for this because of what the US music / movie guys have been doing for years. Take for instance what's recently happened with the TVShack creator and things like this. http://www.businesspost.ie/?_escaped_fragment_=story/Home/News/Music%20industry%20launches%20new%20High%20Court%2 0action%20against%20state/19410615-5218-4f0d-74f6-ef0c79393950#!story/Home/News/Music%20industry%20launches%20new%20High%20Court%2 0action%20against%20state/19410615-5218-4f0d-74f6-ef0c79393950


Yes, this pretty much nails it on the head for me. I really don't care what people write down on paper. As a track record, "people" in general can't be trusted with this level of legalistic power. There is no reason to down play it in a casual way and say it isn't threatening our freedoms in the future.

RebelHill
01-14-2012, 10:14 AM
Well...

Someone will always try and find the most colourful interpretations of any given legislation to try and wrangle as much as they can for themselves... vis a vis abuse. Just think how some use free speech to get away with hate speak against others.

The balance that has to be weighed is whether the protections offered by a given law outweight the opportunities for abuse, and the overall CUMULATIVE effect.

Seeing only the one side can never give a complete or proper picture.

jasonwestmas
01-14-2012, 10:39 AM
In regards to freedom of speech. . .I think lies are much easier to snuff out with truth when there is no law backing it up. With Legalistic procedures, opinion and interpretation the action is happening way above us and is reinforced with courses of punishments, there is not a lot of room for discussion.

This is probably different in different parts of the world but law is pretty tough to fight against socially from what I understand about it. Lots of hoops and red-tape and money power. . . sounds like a nightmare to me.

RebelHill
01-14-2012, 10:47 AM
well law is made or repealed by the legislature, so it's (socially) fought at the ballot box essentially (or the battlefield if things get that bad). As for "room for discussion"... theres loads of room, if there weren't, there'd not be a near endless appeals process.

jasonwestmas
01-14-2012, 10:50 AM
well law is made or repealed by the legislature, so it's (socially) fought at the ballot box essentially (or the battlefield if things get that bad). As for "room for discussion"... theres loads of room, if there weren't, there'd not be a near endless appeals process.

mhmm, thank goodness and truth for that. That takes a lot of time and money. Just saying.. . .and blood and tears some times.

wibly wobly
01-14-2012, 10:50 AM
Seeing only the one side can never give a complete or proper picture.

I completely agree with you here. Like I said though, there as so many vague things in these bills that leave so many bad things open to abuse. On top of that, the people who are supposed to be there to debate the proposed laws have been openly proud of their ignorance regarding the computer world. How can we expect or take what they say in good fair or trust them when they flagrantly ignore basically the worlds concerns. It seems today that they're starting to back down with the DNS thing after so many people from around the world have raised concerns about this. I'd hope people will start moving their DNS addresses out of the US because of this. Too much of the internet is localized in one place right now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

And how is basically every search engine out there any different then this kid? Yet no one's gone after Google or Bing.

It makes me wonder if breaking web page policies or blocking banner adds will be the next thing people start trying to make illegal. Like the fight to have your VCR have the ability to skip TV ads from years back.

I'm all for protecting the IP rights of creators but, it's been transformed into something different. Patent laws are just as bad. Companies are just hoarding this stuff that would have gone into public domain decades ago, long after the creator passed.

http://podcasts.tvo.org/searchengine/audio/801109_48k.mp3

RebelHill
01-14-2012, 11:00 AM
Yes, that heavily unbalanced extradition arrangement is certainly a good example... Im confident it'll get changed at some point in this parliament though... same ol story, shat on by labour, shovelled up by the conservatives.

as for the vaguesness...

Many laws ARE quite vague to an extent (try reading the echr)... simply because its night on impossible to construct legislation that can take into account a huge myriad of possible applications/cases/cicumstances any otherway.

The accepted procedure is, that new laws come, are tested in court, rulings are made, precedents set, and future rulings take those into account, thats how the intricacies get worked out.

it may seem less than ideal, and I can certainly understand that... but the question has to be asked... "how can it be done better?"... and thats a question that no-one has been able to answer for, well... pretty much as long as there has been law.

jasonwestmas
01-14-2012, 11:03 AM
mhmm, thank goodness and truth for that. That takes a lot of time and money. Just saying.. . .and blood and tears some times.

I think a lot of the battles out there can be won on a non-legalistic (verbal) battlefield with far less blood and money letting. Yes, this is OT and a very long discussion. =) Legalism I believe is a final course of action not to be used lightly and not intended to be a life style for everyone.

RebelHill
01-14-2012, 11:12 AM
You know a threads gone too far when people start quoting themselves.

;)

jasonwestmas
01-14-2012, 11:40 AM
Yeah lets talk about motion builder somewhere else. ;)

I guess I made my points about law clear as mud or clear as day.

T-Light
01-14-2012, 08:34 PM
Can we agree on a few things?

1) Politicians may not be the most honest people on Earth
eg Our last Prime Minister promised he would cure cancer at a party conference (granted He was a solid gold nutter but you get my point)

2) Politicians aquire funding via lobbyists in return for favours.

3) Favours from lobbyists include changing the law to suit their vested interests.

4) Lobbying interest are not necessarly shared with the bulk of the population (US or abroad).

5) Corporates, lost for ideas are currently investing millions wrapping legitimate companies in red tape on the basis of very weak patent infringements in the hope very few companies fight back.


My point is this...
If we can't trust politicians, lobbyists and corporates, why on Earth should we trust laws made for corporates, pushed by lobbyists and passed by politicians?

T-Light
01-14-2012, 08:47 PM
RebelHill-

If I got blocked, then it would ONLY be internet users in the US who'd be unable to access my site (at least by its "given name").
Neeeooooo, no no no.
RebelHill.net would dissapear across the globe. The ".net" bit is held in the US and ran by a US firm (Verisign). The best hope would be to get a TLD (.com, .net etc) that's controlled outside of the US. Problem there is you'd need to find a country that doesn't bend over backwards to appease the US (so .co.uk is out :D).

erikals
01-14-2012, 10:30 PM
White House Responds To SOPA

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/14/1718255/white-house-responds-to-sopa-pipa-and-open

 

RebelHill
01-15-2012, 02:55 AM
Well tbh I think politicians fall into 2 different camps. Those who truly are of the people and have a genuine desire to serve their countries, and secondly those who just seek the power. The first you dont need to worry about too much (with exception of the batman maxim of living long enough to become the villain), and teh second will do what they have to do in order to get hold of that power, and that includes BOTH giving favour to individuals who can give them the funding to get there, OR giving favour to the electorate.

Point being you cant just buy your way into office (not so directly)... so buying the votes of the people by giving them exactly what they want is just as good a strategy for getting there, and is seen as often as the other.

Its never so black and white.

As for rebelhill.net vanishing globally... also incorrect.

SOPA would only give the power to block non US based sites from being found through a browser by name (directory blanking essentially). There's nothing in there that allows them to delete any non US site out of existence, since to do so would be a violation of international treaty, and the rules set out by the WIPO.

warmiak
01-15-2012, 09:52 AM
Well tbh I think politicians fall into 2 different camps. Those who truly are of the people and have a genuine desire to serve their countries, and secondly those who just seek the power. The first you dont need to worry about too much (with exception of the batman maxim of living long enough to become the villain), ......

Actually, it is the first group I tend to worry about more.

Pure power seekers tend to be more pragmatic and avoid rocking the boat too much , on the other hand moral/social crusaders and people with "best intentions" are the ones we are likely to have to clean up after ( sub-prime crisis anyone ?)

jasonwestmas
01-15-2012, 12:14 PM
There must be a third group in there somewhere. ;)

RebelHill
01-15-2012, 12:59 PM
Im sure the chicks are great..


moral/social crusaders and people with "best intentions" are the ones we are likely to have to clean up after ( sub-prime crisis anyone ?)

subprime?? obamacare anyone, more like.

love it or hate it... u cant deny its a mess.

jasonwestmas
01-15-2012, 01:07 PM
Oh yeah the "I know what I want; but I don't know how to do it; that's okay, I'll do it anyway; we can do anything we want if we know what to say to make it happen, even if it doesn't really work", group.

Tweaking is one thing but sometimes these guys are way off the mark. I guess this would be the "my agenda is priceless" group.

Ernest
01-15-2012, 04:22 PM
The third group is actually quite large. It's those who have stopped caring about either A or B but just want to keep their jobs as long as possible while doing as little as possible because they're used to it. Curiously enough, those tend to be the ones who are more responsive when the general populace opposes or supports a certain bill.

Meanwhile, in India:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/india-oks-censoring-facebook-google-microsoft-youtube/7308


Actually, it is the first group I tend to worry about more.

Pure power seekers tend to be more pragmatic and avoid rocking the boat too much , on the other hand moral/social crusaders and people with "best intentions" are the ones we are likely to have to clean up after
It seems that way, but it's usually not. Usually the pure power seekers will introduce very tiny modifications in the crusaders' proposals in exchange for support. Those tiny modifications end up having a huge impact. The power seekers benefit and the crusaders get blamed.

Jefferson was a massive crusader, if there ever was one. He was just too cunning to let anyone twist his proposals.

HenrikSkoglund
01-15-2012, 04:25 PM
As it stands now with eff.org on one side and MPAA on the other... Who would you trust? Sooner or later all laws are bent in the search for more profit.

zapper1998
01-16-2012, 06:33 PM
any news?????

erikals
01-16-2012, 08:01 PM
Obama is against SOPA
http://www.care2.com/causes/obama-administration-speaks-out-against-sopa.html

 

JonW
01-16-2012, 11:19 PM
I don't know if it's been mentioned yet as I haven't read the whole thread.


Just heard on the radio Wikipedia is shutting down their english pages tomorrow.

T-Light
01-16-2012, 11:31 PM
RebelHill-

Point being you cant just buy your way into office (not so directly)... so buying the votes of the people by giving them exactly what they want is just as good a strategy for getting there, and is seen as often as the other.
Buying votes off people by giving them what they want? I wish they would.
Current practice would seem to be...
Look at the market research groups and see what's popular with largest demographic.
Tell electorate "We have listened to you, we support X, it's in our manifesto, vote for us"

Once they get in, they come out with this classic line from the previous UK government...
"Manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation".
So much for giving us what we want then.

RebelHill -

There's nothing in there that allows them to delete any non US site out of existence, since to do so would be a violation of international treaty, and the rules set out by the WIPO.
Interesting.

Recommended reading for anyone wanting an incite into 21st Century politics. I'm bitter and twisted when it comes to most politicians, but even I was shocked by this...
The rise of political Lying by Peter Oborne
http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/21413/part_2/practising-to-deceive.thtml

It's mainly about the old Goverment but I would be very surprised if the new lot haven't been taking notes.

T-Light
01-16-2012, 11:53 PM
RebelHill -

Point being you cant just buy your way into office (not so directly)...
Probably didn't make myself clear in the original post, I wasn't suggesting people can buy there way into office, I was also thinking more about the US system than elsewhere as US politicians require a vast amount of funding to run an election campaign (where as the UK's is limited to a few tens of thousands).

As an aside, lobbying in the UK is worse than most people realise. Political writer Quentin letts said on the recent Tory party conference "BBC - This Week", (I paraphrase)...

"The thing that shocked me most was the lobby tent, it was astounding, if you think we still have a democracy in this country think again"

probiner
01-17-2012, 04:22 AM
The cool thing for the lobbyist is that more and more they can just camp on UE and less on each country...



I don't know if it's been mentioned yet as I haven't read the whole thread.


Just heard on the radio Wikipedia is shutting down their english pages tomorrow.

That's sad :(

Edit:Oh it's in protest, but they don't say when it will come back. It will probably save them some money too for a while.

warmiak
01-17-2012, 04:52 AM
RebelHill -

Probably didn't make myself clear in the original post, I wasn't suggesting people can buy there way into office, I was also thinking more about the US system than elsewhere as US politicians require a vast amount of funding to run an election campaign (where as the UK's is limited to a few tens of thousands).

As an aside, lobbying in the UK is worse than most people realise. Political writer Quentin letts said on the recent Tory party conference "BBC - This Week", (I paraphrase)...

US style lobbying is a compromise.
The idea here is that since you can't really get rid of money in politics, it is better to make it as transparent as possible so at least people know who is supporting whom instead of having all of that being done thru some backroom deals.

Ultimately, the only way to get money out of politics is to limit government power in the first place - if you don't need to get a permission for X, there is no need to bribe anyone.
As we get more laws and regulations , there is more incentive to throw money at politicians and people behind these regulations, instead of competing in the marketplace.

T-Light
01-17-2012, 06:24 AM
warmiak -

As we get more laws and regulations , there is more incentive to throw money at politicians and people behind these regulations, instead of competing in the marketplace.
Agreed.

Cryonic
01-17-2012, 09:39 AM
I can think of one consequence of the removal of name resolution to the rest of the world. Even if you can still get to the server by IP address, if the domain was being hosted on a virtual server won't serve up the right site if you come to it via IP rather than name. So, removal of the name resolution by someone in the US would affect the rest of the world.

wibly wobly
01-17-2012, 09:59 AM
Ultimately, the only way to get money out of politics is to limit government power in the first place

Or distribute the power more so it's less of a representative democracy and more like a true democracy. Concentrating power into the hands of a few hasn't really worked out all that well so far.

Bill Carey
01-17-2012, 09:59 AM
The real money here in the USA is for a politician to get on the committee's. It's perfectly legal for a Pelosi to get on a finance committee, vote to give a company a loan and then buy a couple hundred thousand shares of stock. They can do the same thing when it's time to pull the funding and sell the stock. The lobbyist only points the way, much cleaner.

Titus
01-17-2012, 10:03 AM
I don't know if it's been mentioned yet as I haven't read the whole thread.


Just heard on the radio Wikipedia is shutting down their english pages tomorrow.

Wikipedia and many other sites, so don't panic!

wibly wobly
01-17-2012, 11:00 AM
too late

and I just broke a SOPA law because I got this image off a random site from google and I have no idea if there's any copyright attached to it.

OnlineRender
01-17-2012, 03:20 PM
www.lightwiki.net

http://www.lightwiki.net/images/sopa.png

BigHache
01-17-2012, 07:06 PM
Ok that's a pretty sexy effect. Carry on...

probiner
01-17-2012, 08:01 PM
Ah wel done Steph!

Philbert
01-17-2012, 08:15 PM
Ben Vost tells me it's a widely available effect and they didn't make it, but it's still cool.

JonW
01-17-2012, 08:57 PM
We better check the © on all the fonts we are using.


Back to the good old days of chalk & slate!

& for high speed messages, papyrus, pencils & carrier pigeons!

Ryan Roye
01-18-2012, 12:54 AM
Probably already mentioned in this thread... but DRM efforts like Valve's Steam are kind of proof that piracy can indeed be combated without government intervention... it may be more work for the programmer, but if they really want to convert pirate-clients into paying clients there are ways to do it.

Philbert
01-18-2012, 01:08 AM
The Day The LOLCats Died:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p-TV4jaCMk

OnlineRender
01-18-2012, 04:37 AM
Ben Vost tells me it's a widely available effect and they didn't make it, but it's still cool.

yeah the file is on gihub and open to anyone , sorry about streetched forum , dont notice that thing on my monitor , blame nt :) forums images should auto resize or lightbox

Red_Oddity
01-18-2012, 07:28 AM
Probably already mentioned in this thread... but DRM efforts like Valve's Steam are kind of proof that piracy can indeed be combated without government intervention... it may be more work for the programmer, but if they really want to convert pirate-clients into paying clients there are ways to do it.

But that is because that type of DRM feels more like added value than actual DRM (game forums, cheap games, free games/add-ons, free in game chat/voice, achievements, etc)

EA's Origin on the other hand is on how NOT to do it (scanning the users hardware and harddisk content and then setting up your EULA in such a way you can pretty much do anything they want with that collected 'anonymous' data.)

Red_Oddity
01-18-2012, 07:35 AM
As for the truth always prevailing, we only need to look at Iraq and its alleged WMDs
A US vice president who dragged a country into an illegal war, got rich out of it, allowed the torture of prisoners (be they convicted or never even seen the inside of a court of law), and then goes on to boast about it, and nobody even blinks an eye.
Banks raping and pillaging entire countries, then when **** hits the fan, they get bailed out with tax money, nobody gets punished and he cycle starts again.
And that's just the tip of an iceberg the size of Jupiter.

The truth, like my faith in politics and politicians is pretty much dead and buried.
The common man will always get the shaft when push comes to shove, always has, always will, regardless the law or 'truth'

Lightwolf
01-18-2012, 08:15 AM
EA's Origin on the other hand is on how NOT to do it (scanning the users hardware and harddisk content and then setting up your EULA in such a way you can pretty much do anything they want with that collected 'anonymous' data.)
Which they aren't actually doing... even if the EULA allows for it.
And at least in Germany the EULA has also been changed to reflect that.

However, it still offers no additional value like Steam does.

Cheers,
Mike

Red_Oddity
01-18-2012, 08:53 AM
Which they aren't actually doing... even if the EULA allows for it.
And at least in Germany the EULA has also been changed to reflect that.

However, it still offers no additional value like Steam does.

Cheers,
Mike

But Germany is one of the few (if not only) country to actually cry foul over it, the first EULA funnily enough wasn't even legally binding as far as i remember because it actually broke various German laws, with the fixes however it is (so not sure which version was the better one :) )

warmiak
01-18-2012, 09:05 AM
But Germany is one of the few (if not only) country to actually cry foul over it, the first EULA funnily enough wasn't even legally binding as far as i remember because it actually broke various German laws, with the fixes however it is (so not sure which version was the better one :) )

This is precisely why politicians are so powerful and thus corrupt .... people are just too damn lazy to take care of their own business and keep demanding new laws and regulations.

Don't buy the damn game if you don't like its EULA - why do we need "countries" to to be even involved in this ?

wibly wobly
01-18-2012, 09:14 AM
The Day The LOLCats Died:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p-TV4jaCMk

That made my day while waiting for collision sims to render. Think of the cats!

Philbert
01-18-2012, 09:26 AM
EA's Origin on the other hand is on how NOT to do it (scanning the users hardware and harddisk content and then setting up your EULA in such a way you can pretty much do anything they want with that collected 'anonymous' data.)

This is one reason why studios love OnLive. The end users doesn't actually have the game on their system, therefore they cannot pirate it.

Lito
01-18-2012, 09:43 AM
Don't buy the damn game if you don't like its EULA - why do we need "countries" to to be even involved in this ?

Because 99% of people don't read EULA's or ToS agreements. The people only find out after the fact, or after something in them is finally affecting them. Most won't even know then till the consult a lawyer. All EULA's and ToS agreements are in legalize which I would guess everyone here who does not have at least a paralegal degree cannot truly fathom as to what precedences in law give those statements significantly more power than what is implied by a simple reading of the document.


Which they aren't actually doing... even if the EULA allows for it.
So if they aren't actually doing it, it should be REMOVED from the EULA. It is giving them excessive permissions which is always something that should never be allowed.

warmiak
01-18-2012, 10:16 AM
Because 99% of people don't read EULA's or ToS agreements. The people only find out after the fact, or after something in them is finally affecting them. Most won't even know then till the consult a lawyer. All EULA's and ToS agreements are in legalize which I would guess everyone here who does not have at least a paralegal degree cannot truly fathom as to what precedences in law give those statements significantly more power than what is implied by a simple reading of the document.


So if they aren't actually doing it, it should be REMOVED from the EULA. It is giving them excessive permissions which is always something that should never be allowed.

This is not 1992 you know ... this stuff (controversial EUALa) hits the web before the game in question even hits the market so people have plenty of time to make up their mind before they buy the game.

I will let you in on a secret ... most people simply don't give a damn. They just don't care ... if they did, you would have games with such EUALs being returned en masse forcing responsible companies out of business.

wibly wobly
01-18-2012, 01:21 PM
some people seem to be upset about Wikipedia being down today.

https://twitter.com/herpderpedia?_escaped_fragment_=%2Fherpderpedia&_twitter_noscript=1

Philbert
01-18-2012, 01:26 PM
I accidentally discovered that archive.org is down too.

Ryan Roye
01-18-2012, 01:28 PM
some people seem to be upset about Wikipedia being down today.

Heh... half those commenters can't even read... why should they care? :) I find it amusing that a lot of the comments are "WTF why is wikipedia down?"... its a freaking spash page with 5 short lines of text that answers this question.

wrench
01-18-2012, 01:29 PM
WTF, some not very bright sparks on there whose only means of expression is rude TLAs... sigh. Maybe the Internet *should* be shut down.

B

SBowie
01-18-2012, 01:36 PM
some people seem to be upset about Wikipedia being down today.



If Wikipedia gets shut down.. It's all Obama's fault...

You should have provided a warning. Reading that uninformed drivel could easily lead someone to despair over the future of humanity. :bangwall:

wibly wobly
01-18-2012, 01:44 PM
haha, I thought of putting in a warning but, I was laughing at it too hard. People need to get their homework done!

wrench
01-18-2012, 01:46 PM
I just wonder how "Kirastin Spence" *managed* to pass some high school papers... :(

B

Philbert
01-18-2012, 01:53 PM
Heh... half those commenters can't even read... why should they care? :) I find it amusing that a lot of the comments are "WTF why is wikipedia down?"... its a freaking spash page with 5 short lines of text that answers this question.

It is possible that they just heard people saying it was down and that's what they were responding to. Though, they should have actually looked at it for themselves.

wibly wobly
01-18-2012, 01:54 PM
I think the problem is that we're all too old and aren't in touch with the youth anymore.

I bet you could make a great mobile out of those quotes though.

50one
01-18-2012, 01:57 PM
Can anyone from Greece confirm that SOPA means shut up! and PIPA means bl[]wjob? So basically the government is trying to tell you "Shut up and suck"

Cryonic
01-18-2012, 04:01 PM
A US vice president who dragged a country into an illegal war, got rich out of it, allowed the torture of prisoners (be they convicted or never even seen the inside of a court of law), and then goes on to boast about it, and nobody even blinks an eye.

A) The President, as Commander in Chief has the right to deploy the Army, Air Force, etc...

B) Only Congress can declare a war and they decide if the military will get paid or have to withdraw.

So, how was this an illegal war? or even an illegal military action?

As for the suspension of Civil Rights for certain "classes" of people... Well, this isn't a forum for politics, but... "Those who are willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a little security deserve neither."

* * * * *

Back to SOPA/PIPA... Lots of interesting ways to protest. Wikipedia could have gone a different route, like blacking out parts of each article at random, much like government agencies do to "protect" information held within the document.

Or Google could have injected fake results that they blank out in protest...

but most people are sheep and only care that it "doesn't work" and they don't really know or care why...

Ernest
01-18-2012, 05:05 PM
Hey Zuckerberg Why you shut down wikipedia?
...lol?

I have to keep reminding myself that this is Twitter, the social network created for the specific purpose of following Charlie Sheen's every word so this sample should, in no way, extrapolate to the overall population.


PS: Onlive runs so much better than I expected. If the Internet service ever reached Korean levels, I can't imagine that any other type of distribution/console would make sense.

Red_Oddity
01-19-2012, 04:34 AM
So, how was this an illegal war? or even an illegal military action?


Is there such a thing as a 'legal' war? But my point was, the US invaded a country under false pretense, the aforementioned WMDs, when in truth, this was a war to fill the wallets of some very influential people behind the scenes.

Also, i think it's not just the US with its obviously corrupt political system that is to blame, every other country that fought along or just stood by and kept their mouths shut are equally guilty.

-----

But, back to SOPA/PIPA, not sure 'random' blackouts would have helped any more or less, maybe they should have blacked out sites or articles that related to any company the was pro SOPA? Then again, that might look like some childish mud slinging to others.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't i guess.

SBowie
01-19-2012, 07:56 AM
I know this is a discussion with political overtones, but it's being tolerated (until now) because of its obvious interest to artists. That said, it's potential for crossing moderation lines should be obvious.

Could we please and kindly refrain from unnecessarily provocative posts referring to things like partisan politics, military conflicts past and present, and the like)? There should be plenty of fodder for respectful and informative discussion that is directly on point - i.e., relevant to the issues of copyright and ip protection legislation and matters. Thanks.

p.s. - This request is not made in response to any specific post or poster. If anyone wants to quibble about this post, feel free to PM me.
p.p.s - I see I wrote this before (http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?p=1210916#post1210916). So it's true, you do repeat yourself when you get old. Well, at least I'm consistent. :hammer:

Cryonic
01-19-2012, 08:33 AM
But, back to SOPA/PIPA, not sure 'random' blackouts would have helped any more or less, maybe they should have blacked out sites or articles that related to any company the was pro SOPA? Then again, that might look like some childish mud slinging to others.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't i guess.

Facebook was going to go dark in protest, but got so many complaints from users that they didn't go through with it. But that is the whole point of the protest. You want to cause the users some pain, so they do wake up... sigh.

You're Right... damned if you do, damned if you don't.

rcallicotte
01-19-2012, 10:21 AM
Anyone read this?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/

T-Light
01-19-2012, 09:26 PM
rcallicotte -

Anyone read this?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaud...y-legislation/
Good!

In other news, Megaupload has been slain. Suppose these sorts of sites were always going to be a target for the corporates. Some of the worries highlighted in this thread regarding SOPA and PIPA (and dissed by others as 'nonesense') are in fact already happening.
These qoutes are from the LA Times...

Fed can already remove web addresses in US and abroad...

executed more than 20 search warrants in the U.S. and eight foreign countries, seizing 18 domain names and an estimated $50 million in assets

Arrests on foreign soil...

Four of MegaUpload's operators have been arrested in New Zealand

Unwarranted heavy handedness...

Our initial impression is that the allegations are without merit and MegaUpload is going to vigorously contest them," he said. "We have deep concerns over due process and assets being taken without the opportunity for a hearing.

Here's the full story...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/01/file-sharing-megaupload-shut-down-for-piracy-by-feds.html

It seems they have more than enough power already.

rcallicotte
01-20-2012, 07:19 AM
Creator of SOPA violated copyright laws - http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/01/lamar_smith_sopa_copyright_violater.php

wrench
01-20-2012, 07:22 AM
Just skimming back through a few pages I counted four avatars that infringed someone's copyright. If SOPA passes someone could use that as an excuse to shut down NewTek's website...

B

wrench
01-20-2012, 07:43 AM
Seen this? http://www.apeconmyth.com/00227-super-pipa-sopa/

B

zarti
01-20-2012, 05:16 PM
http://mashable.com/2012/01/20/sopa-is-dead-smith-pulls-bill/

;}-

probiner
01-20-2012, 07:40 PM
No Sopa then! This means the next piece of legislation will probably will be much more fair/realistic while still doing it's job.
Or it will be worse because now they shown what hackers can do:
http://www.geekosystem.com/anon-justice-universal/

Not only megaupload is down but megabox too. There goes competition.

erikals
01-21-2012, 06:26 AM
though would´ve been dang interesting to see what SOPA in the U.S. would have brought...

more hidden illegal networks for sure, but how many,,,

probiner
01-21-2012, 11:04 PM
The man (!) introduces legislation against the bad stuff of NDAA:

[Edited by moderator: This post lacks any obvious connection to the central topic of this thread (copyright-related matters). The original thread topic does have some particular interest to this community but, as a reminder, moderation policy specifically disallows general partisan political discussions (the forums being provided for different purposes altogether).]

probiner
01-22-2012, 08:51 AM
Fair enough,the post can be deleted all round, then. On topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYCv_mZ6AJQ

erikals
01-23-2012, 06:04 AM
and then,... ACTA
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?p=1213616#post1213616

 

OnlineRender
01-23-2012, 07:32 AM
...https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/396396_10150518966214145_582954144_8868624_2797404 59_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/p480x480/409223_146827332100124_146704978779026_193948_1040 842748_n.jpg



███ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██
This comment has been found in violation H.R 3261, S.O.P.A

probiner
02-14-2012, 05:15 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEE2crYmZik
So I guess it's settled... Everyone that likes freedom is on the side of pirates, terrorists, con men and child pornographers...

shrox
02-14-2012, 06:59 AM
SOPA sucka I don't wanna.

Cryonic
02-14-2012, 09:11 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEE2crYmZik
So I guess it's settled... Everyone that likes freedom is on the side of pirates, terrorists, con men and child pornographers...

Yeah, that is a pretty bad way to win an argument... if you don't agree with me, then you must be a criminal... similar to "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear from this new law/power/..."

wrench
02-14-2012, 12:21 PM
It always scares me when someone in authority says something like that. "If you haven't got anything to hide, you won't mind me looking in your case/bag/handbag will you?"

B

Bill Carey
02-14-2012, 12:27 PM
It is scary. It amazes me that the people who are willing to give away their liberties forget that it takes a revolution to get them back. Better to keep them from the beginning.

wrench
02-14-2012, 12:54 PM
And I believe it was another great Ben, one of your countrymen, who said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ;)

B

silviotoledo
02-21-2012, 08:15 AM
No sopa :)

Ernest
02-29-2012, 07:25 PM
Looks like it was all much ado about nothing. The law did not get passed and any obscure anti-piracy outfit can still get any non-infringing articles that go against its way of thinking to be removed from the search engines:


The takedown was published on ChillingEffects, a website that shows when reported DMCA notice and takedowns take place. The Techdirt post that was censored, as it turns out, is a commentary on why SOPA and the Protect IP Act is a bad idea. The TorrentFreak article that was censored discusses possible mistakes in a large round of website shutdowns.
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/99308/torrentfreak-techdirt-censored-by-anti-piracy-outfit-on-google/