SOPA internet censorship bill

[B2L]

Was that a recorded response?

Nope it was supposedly Jason Chafetz secretary. Lol. I bet they are busy today.

 

[Roze]

So...I might have been living under a rock for the past couple of months. I learnt about the whole SOPA and Blackout Jan 18...yesterday.

Please note...I don't have the time to read 150+ posts in this thread...so if it's already said...you can link me to the post So, I was reading up on SOPA a bit (like the wiki part) and I wonder if a USA site has its domain hosted in another country, like Canada, how would SOPA affect the site? I mean...whatever company can't sue that site for copyright infringement if the site's domain isn't in the USA, right?

 

[xPureEvilx]

Glad to see so many people support this, keep it up guys.

 

[EarlyMon]

So...I might have been living under a rock for the past couple of months. I learnt about the whole SOPA and Blackout Jan 18...yesterday.

Please note...I don't have the time to read 150+ posts in this thread...so if it's already said...you can link me to the post So, I was reading up on SOPA a bit (like the wiki part) and I wonder if a USA site has its domain hosted in another country, like Canada, how would SOPA affect the site? I mean...whatever company can't sue that site for copyright infringement if the site's domain isn't in the USA, right?

This act goes beyond suing. Way beyond.

This last weekend in the Lounge, I posted the story of a UK student extradited to the US to face criminal charges for running a link site. You may recall that a US guy got 10 years in a US federal penitentiary for running a site that links to copyrighted stuff. Anyway - the UK granted the extradition, and he'll be facing 10 years in jail here if found guilty. Some in the UK are up in arms claiming he didn't break their laws.

Until recently, due to political maneuvering, the bill was also going to have the US government doing DNS blocking, but that's been taken out.

Among the things of interest in this thread - our recording industries having sites taken off-line for copyright infringement knowing full well in advance that no such infringement was occurring.

The SOPA/PIPA proposed bills will allow policing the internet for the benefit of private interests, beyond mere copyright protection - this is about trade protection.

And we're already able to reach into other countries to take things to a criminal level without the proposed laws.

Bad and not good.

 

[9to5cynic]

Good post EM. Fyi, SOPA was on nightly news. Of course, they took a pretty biased view...

 

[9to5cynic]

I saw on Ars that there is a lobbyist group against SOPA now (they only had like, 3K, but still )
[you guys should check out the politics / current events post on it, a ton of info on this]

((did anyone catch the RIAA goober's tweet about wikipedia? lol, what a dope.))

 

[mikedt]

You probably won't even get that, it'll just be a "connection reset" or "socket not connected" error, just like what happens in China.

I wonder if Washington will be getting help from Beijing on how to implement US internet censoring?

 

[blaxican25]

Hitler reacts to SOPA. - YouTube

 

[SUroot]

So basically SOPA is a good thing! Anything that makes hitler mad that he cannot do what he wants has got to be good. Right???

 

[BiggestManEver]

PS - Rather surprised you didn't see the flaw in your logic when you used the word copying, as it shares a root word with copyright.

Copyright infringement is a different thing than stealing.

You guys are very obtuse.

 

[BiggestManEver]

We've been down this road already but this time I will put it in as simple of terms as I can. If you don't own it copying is stealing period, simple, end of story.

Let's say you wrote the biggest most awesome OS ever created, you have patents, copyrights and all the protection you can think of, I come along and copy it without permission I stole it and can be convicted in a court as such.

Your logic is not far from "I didn't steal your car, I borrowed it for an undisclosed amount of time"!

Dude, you're the artist one right?

If you aren't creating your "art" under a contract to be paid by another individual, you have no reason to be upset if someone right-clicks and COPIES a picture you made. You weren't making money from it anyway.

Stealing a car is completely different from making a copy. Even if you return the car. That analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Copyright infringement is a different thing than stealing.

You guys are very obtuse.

Actually if you own the copyright that means NO ONE has the right to copy it without your permission which is then classified as theft legally.

Dude, you're the artist one right?

If you aren't creating your "art" under a contract to be paid by another individual, you have no reason to be upset if someone right-clicks and COPIES a picture you made. You weren't making money from it anyway.

Stealing a car is completely different from making a copy. Even if you return the car. That analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

Maybe my analogy was off, but not by much, it is still stealing. You are missing the fact that unless you outright sell something to someone there are usually royalties attributed to whatever it is, so copying without permission is stealing because you deprive the artist, author, creator or whatever of royalties. Even if I display something on my own without selling it then it is still protected by the copyright and I have the right to say how it is used.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I am currently searching the web for some important crap and I noticed just how many web searches find essentially the same web site. One site originates a tutorial and dozens of sites contain exactly the same material. Some web designers use the Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V process to create their web sites.

Not much (or zero) effort to edit and change; it is the same bloody stuff.

If I wrote a tutorial and it were to spread across the web, I'll certainly have no problem taking down the thief's web site or going after the cretin.

 

[EarlyMon]

Copyright infringement is a different thing than stealing.

You guys are very obtuse.

There are two sets of law you are ignoring.

The first is copyright law. You are parroting an old Slashdot meme, ignorant of the law.

The second is our site rules that state in general to attack issues and not posters. You and I know you have been warned about that. What word would you you use to describe what you just did?

I recommend that you cool your jets, pronto.

 

[EarlyMon]

Dude, you're the artist one right?

If you aren't creating your "art" under a contract to be paid by another individual, you have no reason to be upset if someone right-clicks and COPIES a picture you made. You weren't making money from it anyway.

Stealing a car is completely different from making a copy. Even if you return the car. That analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

You are simply substituting your fantasy for reality.

Things, especially legal things, are the way they are.

They are not the way you believe.

Those of us familiar with the law won't pretend along with you.

Your lack of knowledge of the law is quite extreme.

 

[zuben el genub]

I agree with not violating copyright and stealing, but does anyone remember the stink Sony caused with DCMA?

This is the part that is more worrisome. You are a pirate if you resell your CD/DVD and/or lend it out. You are also a pirate if you play the said disc on more than one machine.

Some of this nonsense is out of hand now. I forget what I was doing, but was denied working with an image I owned. The Exif proved it came from my camera.

Once 5 pounds of manure is out of the bag, no one wants to put it back in.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Once 5 pounds of manure is out of the bag, no one wants to put it back in.

Yes...especially since the bag immediately shrinks to a two pounder!

 

[quest7]

In a sign of just how dramatically public opinion has swung against the Internet anti-piracy legislation up for a vote next week in the Senate, all four GOP candidates said at Thursday evening's primary debate they opposed it, though Rick Santorum seemed, entirely unsurprisingly, the least comfortable with the notion that, as he put it, "anything goes" on the Internet. (Google it.)

SOPA Question Presented To Candidates At Republican Debate (VIDEO) - The Huffington Post

 

[BubbaNexus]

seriously though, don't believe everything you hear. how the heck is someone going to censor the internet? relax people.

 

[9to5cynic]

^

Spoiler

That's because Rick Santorum remembers what happened a few months ago when you googled 'Rick Santorum'

It is good to here that they candidates oppose this nonsense. Though, it wasn't that long ago that only one was opposed to this, so maybe the blackout did its job?

 

[weiss27md]

 

[rdsok]

seriously though, don't believe everything you hear. how the heck is someone going to censor the internet? relax people.

Try telling that to the Chinese people who've had their internet censored for quite some time.

These bills are very much a threat... that is why so many ( including big companies ) are in an uproar over it.

 

[swc2001]

seriously though, don't believe everything you hear. how the heck is someone going to censor the internet? relax people.

OH MY WORD!!!! your right just go back to sticking your head in the sand my friend.

OK lemme splain for the Lamens.

this is just 3 examples. If you were to lip sync to your favorite Lady Ga googly panies on youtube you would first be sued by the MPAA and then they without Due Process would shut down YouTube and fine them.

Ok another example If someone was dumb enough to buy pirated software from an oversees company.... the creditcard company would be sued, you would be sued and finally the website would be blocked.

ok another example on ebay you want to buy New plastics for your R1... so you buy some off of ebay.... OOPS they were copies made in China.... you get sued ebay gets shut down. paypal is also sued for being the person who was the leazon with the money.

GET THE PICTURE.....

So dont worry about it. Go RELAX!!

 

[BiggestManEver]

You are missing the fact that unless you outright sell something to someone there are usually royalties attributed to whatever it is, so copying without permission is stealing because you deprive the artist, author, creator or whatever of royalties.

I don't know what to tell you. This just isn't true. Those that pirate would NEVER have spent the money in the first place. It's not a lost sale. It's gained free advertisement.

Anecdotal evidence 1: Let's say I'm a Tabletop Roleplaying gamer. I heard of this game called Pathfinder. I illegally download the books, to see how the game is. After that, I like the game so much, that I get a group together and we start playing. They all like it so much that each of them buys several of the hardcover books, and one of them even signs up for the Pathfinder monthly subscription service ($20 bucks a month). So, my illegal "piracy" just created revenue for that company; revenue they never would have gotten.

Anecdotal evidence 2: Let's say I illegally download a movie. Say, Inception. I have to illegally download movies, because if I buy it and I don't like it, I'm not allowed to get my money back for some stupid reason. So, I download it. I liked it! But, I still don't have money. So, I put it on my Amazon wishlist (the Blu Ray, the one with all the bells and whistles that costs the most). Then, someone buys it for me! How nice! My illegal download just created revenue for the company.

PIRACY CREATES MONEY

If you don't agree, you have to read this site, in full. I'll post a snippet:

"Going around the major label system"
The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There) | Techdirt

In simplest terms, the model can be defined as:

Connect with Fans (CwF) + Reason to Buy (RtB) = The Business Model

Trent Reznor, the man behind the band Nine Inch Nails, has done so many experiments that show how this model works that it's difficult to describe them all. He's become a true leader in showing how this model works in a way that has earned him millions while making fans happy, rather than turning them into the enemy.

Reznor has always reached out to his fans, and has an amazingly comprehensive website, with forums, chat rooms and many other ways of interacting. He encourages fans to better connect with each other as well. While companies like Warner Music forced all the music videos of their artists off YouTube for many months, Reznor actually aggregates all the videos his fans take at concerts (he encourages them to bring cameras) on one page on his own website. He does the same for photos. He released a (free) iPhone app that allowed fans to locate each other, and communicate with each other, while sharing photos and videos as well. It's all about connecting with those fans, and helping them better connect with each other, so they feel like a part of a club.

From there, he gives fans real reasons to buy. Lately, he's taken to releasing everything he records for free online, knowing that the music will show up on file sharing sites anyway, so he sees no reason to fight it. Yet, he adds many other options that people might want to buy. With his release of the album Ghosts I-IV, he released all the tracks under a Creative Commons license that allowed anyone to share them online for free. Yet, he also set up some cool "reasons to buy." You could get the two disc CD, if you wanted, for just $10. Above that, though, was a Deluxe Edition Package, for $75. It was, effectively, a box set, but around a single album. Beyond the two CDs, it also included a DVD and a Blu-ray and a photobook of images.

I urge everyone who is against "Piracy" to go read that article in its entirety. Very telling about how the business model is changing... instead of fighting file sharing, people should be embracing it, and using the exposure to SELL STUFF.

 

[godraw]

^ Um .... hehehe ........ Wow!

Your way seriously disincentivizes the whole creative process.