If these pass in congress will Dakka still be open to America? If so, will it be open to everyone else??

Lord Magnus wrote:If these pass in congress will Dakka still be open to America? If so, will it be open to everyone else??

No, because GW would close the sh!t out of this site 5 seconds after SOPA passes.

I'm a bit confused about these bills, seeing as I'm not in the US. What are they (I know what they stand for) actually going to change, in simple terms?

BuFFo wrote:

Lord Magnus wrote:If these pass in congress will Dakka still be open to America? If so, will it be open to everyone else??

No, because GW would close the sh!t out of this site 5 seconds after SOPA passes.

That is a legitimate fear. I went way to far into this yesterday to start up again today, but that would be a huge possibility.

Well if it passes this site could easily be blocked, by its name. We will still be able to reach the site by entering the IP address, just no longer by entering the name or searching by name, if I understand correctly. Hopefully this will not pass.

On what grounds? The site owners also own the Dakka name.

If GW could shut this place down then most of the internet will close.

Of course, I imagine if GW did attempt to close Dakka, Warseer and the rest of discussion of GW on the internet, the backlash would be immense. I hope GW realise just how many of their customers use the internet, after all most of them are teens.

Howard A Treesong wrote:On what grounds? The site owners also own the Dakka name.

Not even the name. There's enough copy/paste stuff from 'dexes here to already make me nervous, what with how hyperactive GW Legal can get sometimes.

EDIT: As I reread, I believe that osore meant to block it by the domain name, as in the technical mechanism by which it would be blocked, not merely that the title of the site was reason for blocking it.

If GW could shut this place down then most of the internet will close.

That's precisely why everyone is in such open arms about this poor piece of legislature.

Of course, I imagine if GW did attempt to close Dakka, Warseer and the rest of discussion of GW on the internet, the backlash would be immense. I hope GW realise just how many of their customers use the internet, after all most of them are teens.

Like they did with the shutdown of internet shopping carts, constant price increases, and the first rash of "you have 40k in your name so we're killing your site" closures?

I think you put too much faith in GW customers. They talk a good fight, but it's much easier to just come crawling back.

Howard A Treesong wrote:On what grounds? The site owners also own the Dakka name.

where? since when?

If GW could shut this place down then most of the internet will close.

Yes, that is the point of Sopa.

If someone links a Youtube video in the off topic forum, and that youtube video has a micheal jackson song in it, after the micheal jackson estate closes down youtubue through SOPA, they can close down any sites that simply LINK to that youtube landing page.

Heck, if Activision doesn't like what people are saying about diablo 3, and there is any mention of the term diablo 3 or any links to copy righted materials in the video game forum, dakka can be shut down through SOPA.

Of course, I imagine if GW did attempt to close Dakka, Warseer and the rest of discussion of GW on the internet, the backlash would be immense. I hope GW realise just how many of their customers use the internet, after all most of them are teens.

And since when has GW had any good business sense?

Please take the time to read this post. It put in simple language how the bill would work and how it would make the internet useless. After reading this think of all the web sites that use pictures, video, text, ect from other sources and then you will understand how dangerous this bill is.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-sopa-dangerous-170607899.html

Basically, any form of hotlinking images or even posting links on the entire internet would be illegal.

Me, as a user, having a my little pony signature would be enough legal grounds to have dakka closed down by a copyright claim from hasbro, if they so desired.

My avatar, as a parody falling under fair use, would not be immune to having dakka closed down due to a claim by GW either.. it is not necessary for the accuser to have an actual legal case, it is necessary for the accused to prove their innocence and their site will remain closed until they do.

Yes, the bill really is *that* insane, which is why there has been such a strong reaction to it.

The Obama administration has stated 100% opposition to the bill, but it could still be made into law due to the particularly stupid way that American politics works.

daedalus wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:On what grounds? The site owners also own the Dakka name.

Not even the name. There's enough copy/paste stuff from 'dexes here to already make me nervous, what with how hyperactive GW Legal can get sometimes.

EDIT: As I reread, I believe that osore meant to block it by the domain name, as in the technical mechanism by which it would be blocked, not merely that the title of the site was reason for blocking it.

If GW could shut this place down then most of the internet will close.

That's precisely why everyone is in such open arms about this poor piece of legislature.

Of course, I imagine if GW did attempt to close Dakka, Warseer and the rest of discussion of GW on the internet, the backlash would be immense. I hope GW realise just how many of their customers use the internet, after all most of them are teens.

Like they did with the shutdown of internet shopping carts, constant price increases, and the first rash of "you have 40k in your name so we're killing your site" closures?

I think you put too much faith in GW customers. They talk a good fight, but it's much easier to just come crawling back.

Thank you sir, that is what I meant and as others have pointed out, it need not be GW that pursues blocking viewing of the site.

scarletsquig wrote:Me, as a user, having a my little pony signature would be enough legal grounds to have dakka closed down by a copyright claim from hasbro, if they so desired.

Naw, that wouldn't happen. Hasbro loves the fandom.

By my reading GW can't use it as its deliberately designed to protect American interests and GW's a British company. Intriguing question does this mean an American owned webstore can get GW's main site closed down? By my reading they could.......

reddit has all the info you would want up during their blackout.
www.reddit.com

SOPA is not international and GW is not an American company. It would depend on forms of legislation still being written for whether or not overseas IP holders can actually enforce SOPA in America.

█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████
█████████████████████████████
███████
████████████████████████
This comment has been found in violation of H.R. 3261, S.O.P.A and has been removed. The poster may be detained for an indefinite period of time in accordance with the NDAA

Lord Magnus wrote:If these pass in congress will Dakka still be open to America? If so, will it be open to everyone else??

Yes and yes.

If GW would have the power to take down Dakka under SOPA then they already have the power to take down Dakka under the DMCA. They haven't, they won't.

Here's the layman's explanation:

SOPA: Sites are held accountable for all contest posted to the site, irrespective of the source. The language used is SOPA is so broad that if you have a site with Web 2.0 comments enabled, and someone posts a comment that includes a lyric from a song, then your site is liable in civil court, even though you had no control over that content. This bill is in effect like saying that if you are inside my grocery store and someone shoots you, then I am legally accountable for you being shot. SOPA essentially means that every American company with a web site will either be forced to move their company to another country, or else will be forced to remove their web presence if they wish to avoid malicious civil prosecution.

PIPA: Sites hosting information about loopholes in the law and instructions on how to circumvent intellectual property laws will be made illegal, thus violating multiple rights found under the US constitution. Additionally, it allows Internet service provides immunity from both civil and criminal antitrust prosecution if the Internet service provider voluntarily blocks a site. However, the requirements to allow an Internet service provider to voluntarily block sites are so broad that it gives Internet service providers free reign to control which sites are visible. In effect, the Internet service providers would be legally allowed to set up a 'protection racket' to websites. This no more than a thinly veiled 2nd attempt at the Net Neutrality issue, and to quote Hunter S. Thompson, "it reeks of Bastards".

Fortunately, the Obama administration has openly declared that they will not support either of these bills in their current form. Hopefully that declaring can be taken strongly enough to mean that Obama would go so far as to veto both. (Obama gaining the majority of his funding from the Internet)

I did not check to see if this was posted already but here is the actual bill text in full.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

biccat wrote:

Lord Magnus wrote:If these pass in congress will Dakka still be open to America? If so, will it be open to everyone else??

Yes and yes.

If GW would have the power to take down Dakka under SOPA then they already have the power to take down Dakka under the DMCA. They haven't, they won't.

No and no.

SOPA is so broad that it allows EVERYTHING to be a target, and it allows copyright holders to essentially rob you, take your house and stop your source of income. Economically strangling you to death.



However: If you're as spiteful as I am, SOPA makes things hilarious as it would allow me, as a Canadian (translation: US copyright law can go F--- itself ) to willfully post jpegs of Mickey Mouse on populist sites (thank you, Web 2.0) and then just sit back and watch as the dogs tear each other apart.

azazel the cat wrote:SOPA is so broad that it allows EVERYTHING to be a target, and it allows copyright holders to essentially rob you, take your house and stop your source of income. Economically strangling you to death.

No it's not.

azazel the cat wrote:However: If you're as spiteful as I am, SOPA makes things hilarious as it would allow me, as a Canadian (translation: US copyright law can go F--- itself ) to willfully post jpegs of Mickey Mouse on populist sites (thank you, Web 2.0) and then just sit back and watch as the dogs tear each other apart.

Why not do it now? Ever hear of the DMCA?

Why don't you read the language used in SOPA?

DMCA has very tight restrictions on what can be targeted. SOPA, on the other hand, is so broad that almost everything on the Internet is defined as 'potentially for the purpose of copyright infringement'. And that includes EVERY WEBSITE WITH A MESSAGE BOARD

Please read the SOPA bill before you comment further. That's all I ask: just read the bill.

I would suggest watching this short video if you have any questions about Protect IP
http://vimeo.com/31100268

azazel the cat wrote:Why don't you read the language used in SOPA?

DMCA has very tight restrictions on what can be targeted. SOPA, on the other hand, is so broad that almost everything on the Internet is defined as 'potentially for the purpose of copyright infringement'. And that includes EVERY WEBSITE WITH A MESSAGE BOARD

Please read the SOPA bill before you comment further. That's all I ask: just read the bill.

I did read the bill. I kinda like it. There are some parts that are problematic, but it's actually pretty decent.

I also have sent out DMCA notices. The standard is laughably easy to meet.

You kind of like it? Then you don't understand what effects it's going to have...

Swara wrote:You kind of like it? Then you don't understand what effects it's going to have...

I'm not sure what else to say.

I probably understand better than most.

SOPA and PIPA will probobally not pass. Sites as big as wikipedia and google are boycottiing it!

Would I be crazy to assume I could just buy a foreign proxy server, and use that to do all my illegal shenanigans on?

Dakka could simply move to a non-US server, and if an ISP blocks it, just use a foreign proxy in order to view it. Sure, we would effectively have to pay for internet, but how much is a proxy in europe?

I think most people agree that SOPA is a bit ridiculous. Making site operators police their content is simply not a reasonable requirement.

PIPA, on the other hand, does not have any such stipulation. It seems reasonable to me.


Azazel, you may want to read the PIPA bill. Advertisers, etc., are only exempt from liability if they voluntarily withdraw their services while acting on good faith based on credible evidence that a website is dedicated to infringing activities.

And by the definition of "Internet site dedicated to infringing activities" in the PIPA bill, this would apply only to sites that "[have] no significant use other than engaging in, enabling in, or facilitating" copyright infringement or counterfeit good sales/distribution/advertising. This would apply to The Pirate Bay. Not YouTube. Not DakkaDakka.


Edit: Typo!

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Why don't you read the language used in SOPA?

DMCA has very tight restrictions on what can be targeted. SOPA, on the other hand, is so broad that almost everything on the Internet is defined as 'potentially for the purpose of copyright infringement'. And that includes EVERY WEBSITE WITH A MESSAGE BOARD

Please read the SOPA bill before you comment further. That's all I ask: just read the bill.

I did read the bill. I kinda like it. There are some parts that are problematic, but it's actually pretty decent.

I also have sent out DMCA notices. The standard is laughably easy to meet.

Oh, do you have a website? What's the URL?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

elrabin wrote:Azazel, you may want to read the PIPA bill. Advertisers, etc., are only exempt from liability if they voluntarily withdraw their services while acting on good faith based on credible evidence that a website is dedicated to infringing activities.

And by the definition of "Internet site dedicated to infringing activities" in the PIPA bill, this would apply only to sites that "[have] no significant use other than engaging in, enabling in, or facilitating" copyright infringement or counterfeit good sales/distribution/advertising. This would apply to The Pirate Bay. Not YouTube. Not DakkaDakka.

The definition is too broad. Under that language, The Pirate Bay DOES have significant use, as it is a file sharing network that can be used for open-source programs and public-domain files. "Credible evidence" is not defined, and in civil law it is not deemed as 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but rather 'more likely than not'. That is a scary amount of ill-defined power, and I am glad that I am not subject to laws like that. Oh, and it most definitely would shut down YouTube. Just type in any song or band name, and you'll see why.

The most alarming part of the PIPA bill, however, is that it precludes sites from being able to share knowledge of how to circumvent those laws. I believe you have at least two constitutional rights that are in violation due to the language of PIPA.

azazel the cat wrote:
The definition is too broad. Under that language, The Pirate Bay DOES have significant use, as it is a file sharing network that can be used for open-source programs and public-domain files. "Credible evidence" is not defined, and in civil law it is not deemed as 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but rather 'more likely than not'. That is a scary amount of ill-defined power, and I am glad that I am not subject to laws like that.

This language is not unusual for US laws. "Credible evidence" and "acting in good faith" are both legal terms with precedents set for interpretation.

azazel the cat wrote:The most alarming part of the PIPA bill, however, is that it precludes sites from being able to share knowledge of how to circumvent those laws. I believe you have at least two constitutional rights that are in violation due to the language of PIPA.

Can you provide a quote from the PIPA bill that supports this argument? I can't seem to find any language that would allow this.


Edit: Ninja'd

Oh, and it most definitely would shut down YouTube. Just type in any song or band name, and you'll see why.

YouTube has a system for reporting copyright infringements. They comply with DMCA claims. Many artists/labels now have agreements with YouTube and have licensed content for streaming. I don't think it would be difficult for YouTube to show that the majority of their views are for original content produced by partners and licensed content from media outlets.

Unlike The Pirate Bay, which is essentially a search engine for torrents. It in itself does nothing other than allow you to find torrents. The majority of the tracked torrents indexed by TPB were copyright infringing material. I am aware that many "legal" things are shared in torrents, but I seriously doubt that even 1% of the traffic at any of the major torrent index sites are for legal material. I would love to be proven otherwise!

That's the same argument as saying that you should shut down all roads because they are being used to allow people to drive drunk.

And YouTube really doesn't have very good software to protect from copyright infringement. This should be self-evident.


EDIT: I apologize. I think I said that the anti-circumvention legislation was part of PIPA, when it is in fact part of SOPA. That is my error and I apologize for any confusion.

I know craigslist is all bugged out about this.

azazel the cat wrote:

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Why don't you read the language used in SOPA?

DMCA has very tight restrictions on what can be targeted. SOPA, on the other hand, is so broad that almost everything on the Internet is defined as 'potentially for the purpose of copyright infringement'. And that includes EVERY WEBSITE WITH A MESSAGE BOARD

Please read the SOPA bill before you comment further. That's all I ask: just read the bill.

I did read the bill. I kinda like it. There are some parts that are problematic, but it's actually pretty decent.

I also have sent out DMCA notices. The standard is laughably easy to meet.

Oh, do you have a website? What's the URL?

I'm an IP lawyer. I send DMCA notices for clients.

Ah, that's why you are in favour of SOPA: minor personal gain at the expense of the public good.

EDIT: Well, when first they come for the websites, you will say nothing because you do not have a web site.

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Why don't you read the language used in SOPA?

DMCA has very tight restrictions on what can be targeted. SOPA, on the other hand, is so broad that almost everything on the Internet is defined as 'potentially for the purpose of copyright infringement'. And that includes EVERY WEBSITE WITH A MESSAGE BOARD

Please read the SOPA bill before you comment further. That's all I ask: just read the bill.

I did read the bill. I kinda like it. There are some parts that are problematic, but it's actually pretty decent.

I also have sent out DMCA notices. The standard is laughably easy to meet.

Oh, do you have a website? What's the URL?

I'm an IP lawyer. I send DMCA notices for clients.

So whats all the drama about? Is it hype? Can you translate the legalese if you don't mind?

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Why don't you read the language used in SOPA?

DMCA has very tight restrictions on what can be targeted. SOPA, on the other hand, is so broad that almost everything on the Internet is defined as 'potentially for the purpose of copyright infringement'. And that includes EVERY WEBSITE WITH A MESSAGE BOARD

Please read the SOPA bill before you comment further. That's all I ask: just read the bill.

I did read the bill. I kinda like it. There are some parts that are problematic, but it's actually pretty decent.

I also have sent out DMCA notices. The standard is laughably easy to meet.

Oh, do you have a website? What's the URL?

I'm an IP lawyer. I send DMCA notices for clients.

Since when.

azazel the cat wrote:Ah, that's why you are in favour of SOPA: minor personal gain at the expense of the public good.

Lol. Yeah, obviously.

ShumaGorath wrote:Since when.

I passed the bar in 2007. I think my first takedown request was in '08 against a company copying my client's software.

Byte wrote:So whats all the drama about? Is it hype? Can you translate the legalese if you don't find?

A client comes to me and says "this website is letting people download my software." And it is. It's drawing business from the client's website; people aren't buying his product because they can get it for free.

If the company is located in the US we send a Cease & Desist letter. If that doesn't work we sue them.

But what if the company isn't a US company? Say they're a Chinese company. Well, before DMCA we didn't have any recourse against these companies, unless you wanted to go to the expense of suing in a foreign country (who probably won't rule against you because you're not Chinese). DMCA came along and gave authority over websites hosted in the US, on the theory that the website is physically located in the US.

So now we send the company a letter then send a DMCA takedown request to the hosting company.

But what if they're not a US company and had the foresight to host their website in another country? Under the current law we're SOL, because there's no jurisdiction over either the company or the website. SOPA recognizes this problem and gives authority over domain names, ISPs (you tell the ISP where you want to go, the ISP gets the information from the website and gives it to you*), advertisers and financial service providers.

So now I can send a notification to the website that they're infringing my client's copyright. If they dispute this then they send me a counter-notification that they don't infringe and consent to US jurisdiction (meaning I can sue them in the US to resolve this issue). If they don't send the counter-notification then I sue the website and go to any advertisers (Google Ads) or financial service providers (Paypal) and force them to stop serving that website.

There's also another provision that allows the attorney general to enforce the act. They gain the additional authority to tell ISPs (once they've got a court order) to (essentially) de-register the domain name of the infringing site. This only applies to criminal copyright acts.

This is the part I have the biggest problem with; giving the AG authority over ISPs when they're not parties to the suit. This could be better resolved through ICANN.

* Well, sort of, but not really. But this is a good enough understanding for now

Byte wrote:So whats all the drama about? Is it hype? Can you translate the legalese if you don't find?

Just look for my post on the first page. I put it in layman's terms.

EDIT: What Biccat is conveniently forgetting to mention, is that under SOPA, he is not required to notify the offending company; he can actually skip that step and just go after the advertisers and banking systems. At which point the offending company can agree to become subject to US law: and in doing so, can be asked if their site allows piracy. If the company answers 'no', then they have committed perjury because the broad definition of piracy-endorsing sites under SOPA includes anything with a message board and are then subject to criminal law.

Long story short, the law will allow the RIAA, amongst others, to exercise North Korea-like level of censorship and control over the American people.

If you want a good comparison to see the proper scope of SOPA, it's basically going to bring back the McCarthy-era blacklists to companies on a global scale:

"Have you ever committed piracy or hosted a message board?"
--> "yes" ---> company gets blacklisted from ISPs, Visa, PayPal, Amex, advertisers, etc under fear that they now become liable.
--> "no" ---> criminal perjury charges.

EDIT: Oh, and Biccat, your fine print of "Well, sort of, but not really. But this is a good enough understanding for now" is a DANGEROUS position to take, because it shows that you have not considered the long-term repercussions of your current mindset. This is the attitude many people had when the USAPatriot Act was voted on, and now your government can bag your head during a rendition action and hold you without habeus corpus.

If this goes through, I will be saving money each month by not having an internet provider, seeing as how I won't have the internet.

The odds of these bills being passed in their current form are negligible, they are already being rejected by the Obama administration and a good deal of acting politicians. Don't get me wrong, these bills are monstrosities, but they're not getting passed as is, they will be edited before they can even have a chance.

But the point is that everyone in the USA that does not own or run a massive corporation should make it clear to their congressman that any bills even close to infringing on your freedoms like these will not be tolerated. Allowing someone to crap on your plate the first time only to crap slightly less on your plate the second time is exactly the game plan, because then, when you're eating slightly less crap, it won't seem as bad by comparison.

Never, ever let your elected members stop being afraid of you. This seems to be a lesson that is completely lost in most of the US. (at least, this is generally the impression that we get up North here. Perhaps I'm very mistaken)

SOPA only effects American based website. The USA cannot enforce global internet laws. One country cannot govern the internet, and the laws one country passes does not effect the UK.

That's like saying "I cannot be put in the electric chair in the USA, because Capital Punishment is illegal in the UK."

DeadlySquirrel wrote:SOPA only effects American based website. The USA cannot enforce global internet laws. One country cannot govern the internet, and the laws one country passes does not effect the UK.

That's like saying "I cannot be put in the electric chair in the USA, because Capital Punishment is illegal in the UK."

Laws in the U.S. regarding the internet tend to effect the whole of the global internet though since most of it's most indespensible services Are hosted here.

I passed the bar in 2007. I think my first takedown request was in '08 against a company copying my client's software.

This is startling.

While most of these comments do seem true. The SOPA act is a horrible piece of work, and many people agree.

It will not get passed. I believe there is such a massive backlash from the web. And the only people are supporting it are the people that will benefit from it. But Even some companies that do see the problem with it. And are backing down. 2 major supporters just left.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:SOPA only effects American based website. The USA cannot enforce global internet laws. One country cannot govern the internet, and the laws one country passes does not effect the UK.

That's like saying "I cannot be put in the electric chair in the USA, because Capital Punishment is illegal in the UK."

The US government, or at least some members of it, like(s) to see the internet in its entirety as its own possession, there's no saying how far they will try to go.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:SOPA only effects American based website. The USA cannot enforce global internet laws. One country cannot govern the internet, and the laws one country passes does not effect the UK.

That's like saying "I cannot be put in the electric chair in the USA, because Capital Punishment is illegal in the UK."

But any US funding is subject to be blacklisted. For example, if I have a company in China, and a website hosted in Russia, but I receive my money via PayPal, then under SOPA, the USA can prosecute PayPal for supporting me.



EDIT: grammar

Horst wrote: Sure, we would effectively have to pay for internet, but how much is a proxy in europe?

A whole lot more than now if SOPA passes

azazel the cat wrote:EDIT: Oh, and Biccat, your fine print of "Well, sort of, but not really. But this is a good enough understanding for now" is a DANGEROUS position to take, because it shows that you have not considered the long-term repercussions of your current mindset. This is the attitude many people had when the USAPatriot Act was voted on, and now your government can bag your head during a rendition action and hold you without habeus corpus.

I believe biccat's 'fine print' was an asterisk linked to his point about how ISPs work, rather than a 'fine print' to his whole statement.

He wasn't too far off of the description anyway. It was simple, but didn't need to be complex in the first place.

You type the information in, the ISP passes it onto a series of servers which resolve the name and pass back the information to the ISP that then passes it to you. If I remember correctly it is read from right to left.

For example for "www.dakkadakka.com" it would also read it as ".com.dakkadakka.www", the ISP would pass it out to ".com" which would go through the listings it contains and return the address if it can find it, otherwise it'd pass it onto another which would contain it. Also ".com" should be spread over several of these servers, the majority of which should reside in the US. Basically when you enter an address your computer goes "Does anyone know where url is?", they then reply if they do or not before you go there. Unless you're not using TCP in the case of video streams, which in that case it just throws it at you and doesn't wait for you to confirm if you're receiving it right. But, this is way overboard what was needed.

Fair enough, while that is a very simplistic description of how hypertext transfer protocols work, I concede that it is perfectly sufficient for our debate here.

biccat wrote:But what if they're not a US company and had the foresight to host their website in another country? Under the current law we're SOL, because there's no jurisdiction over either the company or the website. SOPA recognizes this problem and gives authority over domain names, ISPs (you tell the ISP where you want to go, the ISP gets the information from the website and gives it to you*), advertisers and financial service providers.

However, here is where the fundamental problem lies: SOPA is created by sanctimonious turds-with-haircuts that believe the broken and corrupt US legal system should be forced upon the rest of the world. And I'm well aware that I'm editorializing quite a bit, however it is plain to see that the current US judicial system has some seriously flawed core mechanics to it. While those mechanics originally had good intentions, they have unfortunately become twisted in order to crush the 'little guy'.

@squidmanlolz- The obama administration said the same thing about the ndaa, yet mr. obama signed the ndaa into law before x-mas.

@biccat- Just because a law can be concieved of doesn't mean that it shoulb be enacted. The first rule of good law making is to write laws that the are realistically enforceable and the second is to enact only the laws that the people want/or benefit the nation as a whole......not just the gov., the corps., or the lawyers.


(Off-topic)
Question, "What do you think of the ndaa?

The problems with SOPA as I can see it, is that:
1) it has the potential to break the DNS system. This could quite easily break access to websites from other countries.
2) It becomes easier to issue 'takedown notices'
3) the accused party does not need to be notified of said takedown notice

4) The use of the DMCA has shown that a large proportion (Google says over 50%) of notices are used to oppress opposing businesses. Look at the number of startups in various media-sharing technologies: Youtube, Netflix, Spotify, Grooveshark... None of them would exist if this law came into place, as companies who were supposedly wronged could get them shut down without notice or trial.

5) It hampers the growth of the technology industry. Investors are going to be understandably reluctant to fund startups who can be shut down in a blink.

6) It won't stop piracy anyway. Piracy is a service problem more than a monetary one: people get better service from pirates than they do from legal options. The success of iTunes goes to show that users will pay money (and lots of it) if the service is comparable.

7) It puts undue burden on website owners to police user uploaded content for links to infringing sites.

8) It sets up the legal framework for much wider censorship. Some countries in the world have experienced this already esp in government-imposed anti-porn filters.

biccat wrote:

Swara wrote:You kind of like it? Then you don't understand what effects it's going to have...

I'm not sure what else to say.

I probably understand better than most.

If you actually like it, then no, no you really bloody don't.

You want to give corporations more power over content than they currently have? You like the fact that they have a noted history of abuse when it comes to copyright claims and you like the fact that they'll be able to abuse their power further if these bills come into force?
Don't know what to say mate other than you clearly don't understand the effects this bill will have if it comes into force.

Edit: To those folks who don't know what SOPA / PIPA is here's a short video detailing what it is and what the effects of it will be.

to be honest, I'm a little concerned about this after reading Judge's explanations. In fact, from my understanding, this does have an effect on foreign message boards not resident in the US as well.
If some of my users link to videos on youtube or pictures on photobucket, which violate copyrights, I as administrator/owner of the message board can be made responsible for this and possibly be sued under US law.. as a german citizen...
heavy stuff, if I'm correct and to be honest a reason to shut down my message board as fast as possbile when SOPA goes active, even as a foreign user.

If the US wants to enact laws in detriment to its own citizens, then that's up to them. I'll just watch and wait for inevitable backlash and cheer on the revolution when it comes

If the US tries to enact laws that in any way dare to infringe on the sovereignty of other nation states as elements of this bill are so clearly designed to do (and for the primary purpose of ensuring the continuing staggering wealth inequality of the 1% - anyone who thinks this is about ensuring fair and reasonable legal protection for the 'little guy' is deluded) then they are in for a rude awakening.

Countries that value free speech will simply not allow their citizens to be tried under the US legal system or sued by US civil courts. The internet will migrate away from the US and the economic implications are staggering.

This is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever encountered and is corporate cronyism of the highest order. I would be astonished if a thorough investigation did not turn up significant financial incentives being dangled in front of the bill sponsors by those few companies/individuals who would actually benefit from this.

Come on America - show the rest of the world you really are the land of the free and consign this piece of trash and the blithering idiots who wrote it to the dust.

^lol "thorough" investigation, THIS. IS. AMERICA! lobbyists have too much power here and with "citizens united" corporations are people who can donate infinitely and anonymously to politicians, we will never know what bribes they were given.

Still, Facebook and the interwebs here are awash in anti-SOPA post and links to how to contact senators/representatives, if it wasn't for the website blackouts, the news would NEVER even have reported on it, since they are owned by the corporations that want it passed, THATS the part that really upsets me, all the newspapers and tv media are corporate owned, if those corporations work together, all we have is the internet, thats why they want to slap a collar on it and make it bark like a dog. Gen Y is mad a hell and we arent going to take it anymore! So for those not living in america, be assured, this will not pass.

P.S. also its slowly dawning on people that SOPA means no more free porn...

Chimera_Calvin wrote:The internet will migrate away from the US and the economic implications are staggering.

This is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever encountered and is corporate cronyism of the highest order. I would be astonished if a thorough investigation did not turn up significant financial incentives being dangled in front of the bill sponsors by those few companies/individuals who would actually benefit from this.

I believe this is what is referred to in marksmanship as the 'double tap'. You've got it exactly correct. The SOPA legislation is created out of the fears held by the old guard. Most major copyright-holding parent companies recognize that they do not have the kind of control over their intellectual property that hey would like, thanks in part to most countries not being as corrupt and one-sided as the US is with corporations. So legislation like SOPA is created, their Death Star, so to speak. And it will have two effects: first, it will give corporations unopposed control of multimedia in the US. And second, it will drive the entire market for that multimedia outside the US in opposition. Just like you said, Chimera_Calvin.

On a side note, I, for one hope that the UK becomes the overall 'center' of the Internet when the USA's Internet presence becomes akin to a ghost town, because I do not feel like learning German (based on my understanding that aside from English, German is the 2nd most used European language.)

I, as a Swede, welcome this law. Facebook's already opened a large server hall in Sweden, creating many jobs in the IT sector. If web pages had to be hosted somewhere else, it'd be beneficial for Sweden, seeing as our climate is good for server halls (reduced cooling costs).

It doesn't help when the committee who is responsible for these bills barely understands what the internet IS, and repeatedly ask for "nerds" to tell them what these bills would do.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:
Countries that value free speech will simply not allow their citizens to be tried under the US legal system or sued by US civil courts. The internet will migrate away from the US and the economic implications are staggering.

Unfortunately, you're wrong on that count.

The UK has an extradition treaty with the US... at any point in time, a UK citizen can be accused by America (without any sort of UK trial) and whisked away to be tried in an American court and serve their sentence in an American jail, and there is absolutely nothing that the UK can do about it.

In fact, just last week, a 23 year-old filesharer got deported to the US where he faces 5 years in jail over there. It happens.

EDIT: What Biccat is conveniently forgetting to mention, is that under SOPA, he is not required to notify the offending company; he can actually skip that step and just go after the advertisers and banking systems. At which point the offending company can agree to become subject to US law: and in doing so, can be asked if their site allows piracy. If the company answers 'no', then they have committed perjury because the broad definition of piracy-endorsing sites under SOPA includes anything with a message board and are then subject to criminal law.

I'm interested in your solution to the Russia and China problem, both of which pirate a massive amount of copyrighted material and sell it. This is well-known and currently nothing can be done about it, which is hurting the economy.

If SOPA is unfixable...then what is the solution? I hope its a bit more thought out than 'Nothing we can do' though.

In fact, just last week, a 23 year-old filesharer got deported to the US where he faces 5 years in jail over there

He deserved what he got.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:
On a side note, I, for one hope that the UK becomes the overall 'center' of the Internet when the USA's Internet presence becomes akin to a ghost town, because I do not feel like learning German (based on my understanding that aside from English, German is the 2nd most used European language.)

Well I think it is in fact the most used used language in Europe with app. 120 Mio+ native speakers... and official EU languages are: 1. French 2. German 3. English.
So learning german isn't the baddest decision

Mr Hyena wrote:
I'm interested in your solution to the Russia and China problem, both of which pirate a massive amount of copyrighted material and sell it. This is well-known and currently nothing can be done about it, which is hurting the economy.
If SOPA is unfixable...then what is the solution? I hope its a bit more thought out than 'Nothing we can do' though.

Is piracy by the Chinese really hurting the economy? Are the consumers in China (or the USA) who are viewing pirated material likely to buy that material if they can't get it for free? Some studies (which I don't have links to) suggest that in 80-90% of cases, no, they'll just do without.
The money that people aren't spending on movies and tv shows, they are still spending on other products in your country (the alternative is that all the pirates are just wandering around with wads of cash in their pockets).

SOPA is just another reaction by the content industry struggling to deal with new technologies. We came across the same thing when cassettes, vhs,dvd's were invented - these were to be the downfall of the movie industry. Maybe the movie industry will shrink whilst other areas of the economy grow. If the movie industry is smart, they'll adapt to the new ways that people are wanting to consume their data. If they're not smart, the correct answer is not to break the dynamic linking structure that underpins the modern internet.

SOPA is starting to sound so badly written that I'm starting to think that GW must have written it.

Mr Hyena wrote:

EDIT: What Biccat is conveniently forgetting to mention, is that under SOPA, he is not required to notify the offending company; he can actually skip that step and just go after the advertisers and banking systems. At which point the offending company can agree to become subject to US law: and in doing so, can be asked if their site allows piracy. If the company answers 'no', then they have committed perjury because the broad definition of piracy-endorsing sites under SOPA includes anything with a message board and are then subject to criminal law.

I'm interested in your solution to the Russia and China problem, both of which pirate a massive amount of copyrighted material and sell it. This is well-known and currently nothing can be done about it, which is hurting the economy.

If SOPA is unfixable...then what is the solution? I hope its a bit more thought out than 'Nothing we can do' though.

In fact, just last week, a 23 year-old filesharer got deported to the US where he faces 5 years in jail over there

He deserved what he got.

To answer your first statement, a gaming company Valve found that most people pirate not because they like stealing, but rather its because of service problems. Either the content isn't being offered in a period of time which is acceptable, the way the content was being provided is horrible or the costs are too prohibitive. Valve found by focusing on providing a better service than pirates, that piracy levels dropped drastically, with Russia becoming one of their top selling regions.

To your second statement, that's just shocking you think that. What he was doing was perfectly legal in the UK.
The response to that? He's getting extradited to a country to face charges for a crime that's only illegal there, which is just stupid. He definitely doesn't deserve what he got and to think so shows a stunning lack of knowledge on the issue.
Do you somehow think its fair to be charged in a foreign country under their laws, even if your not a resident? Despite what the US and its citizens might think, they are not the global authority on what is moral and legal.

ArbitorIan wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:EDIT: Oh, and Biccat, your fine print of "Well, sort of, but not really. But this is a good enough understanding for now" is a DANGEROUS position to take, because it shows that you have not considered the long-term repercussions of your current mindset. This is the attitude many people had when the USAPatriot Act was voted on, and now your government can bag your head during a rendition action and hold you without habeus corpus.

I believe biccat's 'fine print' was an asterisk linked to his point about how ISPs work, rather than a 'fine print' to his whole statement.

Yes, that's correct.

azazel the cat wrote:SOPA is created by sanctimonious turds-with-haircuts that believe the broken and corrupt US legal system should be forced upon the rest of the world. And I'm well aware that I'm editorializing quite a bit, however it is plain to see that the current US judicial system has some seriously flawed core mechanics to it. While those mechanics originally had good intentions, they have unfortunately become twisted in order to crush the 'little guy'.

What mechanics do you have a problem with in the US judicial system? We're talking about mechanics here, not substantive law.

focusedfire wrote:@biccat- Just because a law can be concieved of doesn't mean that it shoulb be enacted. The first rule of good law making is to write laws that the are realistically enforceable and the second is to enact only the laws that the people want/or benefit the nation as a whole......not just the gov., the corps., or the lawyers.

You're correct that the law doesn't have to be enacted. But I think that there are good parts to this law

focusedfire wrote:Question, "What do you think of the ndaa?

I haven't spent any time on it, so I really don't have an opinion. It's not really interesting subject matter to me.

Trasvi wrote:1) it has the potential to break the DNS system. This could quite easily break access to websites from other countries.
2) It becomes easier to issue 'takedown notices'
3) the accused party does not need to be notified of said takedown notice

#3 is incorrect, there is a notice requirement. Of course if you're hiding behind a secret registration or provided false information to your registrar you wouldn't be notified. But I'm not sure that's a problem.
#2 is debatable. The DMCA takedown system is pretty easy right now.
I'm not familiar enough with the system to see how the DNS system gets broken under #1.

Trasvi wrote:4) The use of the DMCA has shown that a large proportion (Google says over 50%) of notices are used to oppress opposing businesses.

You'd have to look a little closer at those numbers. If a competitor takes the instruction manual from my website and posts it as their own (yes, this happens), is a DMCA used "to oppress opposing businesses"? Probably. It's also a legitimate use of the DMCA.

Trasvi wrote:Look at the number of startups in various media-sharing technologies: Youtube, Netflix, Spotify, Grooveshark... None of them would exist if this law came into place, as companies who were supposedly wronged could get them shut down without notice or trial.

First, they couldn't get shut down without notice or trial. Second, DMCA allows for much harsher penalties and as far as I know all of those websites are (1) hosted in the US; and (2) created post-DMCA. If they weren't shut down under DMCA I don't see how they would be shut down under SOPA.

Trasvi wrote:5) It hampers the growth of the technology industry. Investors are going to be understandably reluctant to fund startups who can be shut down in a blink.

Keep in mind that this only hampers copyright-stealing websites. I think that's a big bullet point that needs to be remembered. And these companies have the same risk under DMCA (or copyright law) if they're US companies or hosted in the US.

Trasvi wrote:6) It won't stop piracy anyway. Piracy is a service problem more than a monetary one: people get better service from pirates than they do from legal options. The success of iTunes goes to show that users will pay money (and lots of it) if the service is comparable.

I don't disagree that piracy isn't always a monetary issue. And I don't disagree that copy protection tends to be terrible. Like you say, iTunes is a very good example of a positive anti-piracy move.

However, people are making money off of piracy. Subscription services and advertising are revenue sources for pirates and this bill is aimed at stopping those sources.

Trasvi wrote:7) It puts undue burden on website owners to police user uploaded content for links to infringing sites.

8) It sets up the legal framework for much wider censorship. Some countries in the world have experienced this already esp in government-imposed anti-porn filters.

I think those are both more hyperbole than substantive criticism. Plus, this post is already getting long.

Probably not, considering we have a pirated rulebook and some codex updates. But that depends if they are real or not. Soooo I'm gonna say Dakka go bye bye :(

It is good to see that most of us agree that SOPA and PIPA are terrible pieces of legislation. It certainly appears the bills were written at the behest of companies who not only want to stop counterfeiting, but also stifle legitimate competition.

This being said, counterfeiting and copyright violations are a real problem. It is my opinion that big names in the industry like Google break the law quite frequently. This in effect forces other businesses to follow suit or go out of business. If the government is serious about this then first thing that it should do is enforce the current laws equally. Unfortunately I doubt this will happen. The feds are in the habit of looking in the other direction while certain businesses profit, viz a viz the illegal alien fiasco.

You guys (and maybe gals) do know that SOPA has a very low chance of passing, right?

SOPA and PIPA, while pursuing good ends (protecting IPs), are incredibly flawed... I'm not an expert of US constitutional law but it seems to me that being able to bypass the site owner is a violation of the right to judicial protection, which is a common feature of western law. Still, even if the bill is changed, this kind of law will make users loss confidence.
-
The only possible outcome i see is initially a massive drop not only in IP violations, but also in overall internet traffic... then probably internet users will start to use European hosters, abandoning America. The potential damage for US economy is not indifferent IMHO...
-
Lobbies should start to think about ways to make money from the internet as it is now... Even in the current situation, it doesn't look like that music and movies producers are experiencing famine... The enforcement of such a policy in a global scale is absolutely impossible... For example, in europe is extremely difficult to have such a bill passed... the ECJ and the German Costitutional Court will crack it in a few seconds... And do not let me start talking about eastern europe, south america and possibly in the future, Africa...

Trasvi wrote:
Is piracy by the Chinese really hurting the economy? Are the consumers in China (or the USA) who are viewing pirated material likely to buy that material if they can't get it for free? Some studies (which I don't have links to) suggest that in 80-90% of cases, no, they'll just do without.
The money that people aren't spending on movies and tv shows, they are still spending on other products in your country (the alternative is that all the pirates are just wandering around with wads of cash in their pockets).

Microsoft estimates that only 10% of the Windows installs in China are legit. (Of course, that figure may be exaggerated a little). Doing without Windows means using what alternative?

As a software engineer, I can't stand pirating. Not because people pirate software I contribute to (I don't work on consumer software), but because it decreases the value of my work and effectively makes me less money. If companies make less money off the software they produce, they can't pay their engineers as much. Which has the net effect of placing downward pressure on salaries of all software engineers. It doesn't make a difference to me if people are still spending money on US goods -- that doesn't do any good for my industry.

At least for software there are ways we can try to combat piracy ("Cloud" services, pay-for-support, etc). For entertainment, there is no such way.

Kinda reminds me of the Family Guy episode where they try and sensor real life.

If this act gets through, then its one more step towards dudes in shades and trench-coats running up to us pissing in a toilet shouting, 'Sir! One shake only!'

Lol @ that thought

Is piracy by the Chinese really hurting the economy? Are the consumers in China (or the USA) who are viewing pirated material likely to buy that material if they can't get it for free? Some studies (which I don't have links to) suggest that in 80-90% of cases, no, they'll just do without.

Yes, it does. Its less sales regardless of buying it or not in the end. If they aren't going to buy it, they shouldnt have it because you need to pay to get a product (unless with the consent of the owning company).

At least for software there are ways we can try to combat piracy ("Cloud" services, pay-for-support, etc). For entertainment, there is no such way.

This is what terrifies me. I HATE HATE HATE 'Cloud' services and subscription-based gaming services. I don't want to have to subscribe to play a game I already bought. But the industry trend is leaning towards those kinds of games and platforms games are released on, because thats the only thing that defeats pirates. *sighs*.

I like the internet as it is. I gain nothing from SOPA and many sites I enjoy would be threatened.

I did have a "wtf...wikipedia is down"... moment. Very telling...

Fralethepalewhale wrote:Probably not, considering we have a pirated rulebook and some codex updates. But that depends if they are real or not. Soooo I'm gonna say Dakka go bye bye :(

Well if Dakka was taken down at least you'd know it was genuine.

biccat wrote:

focusedfire wrote:@biccat- Just because a law can be concieved of doesn't mean that it shoulb be enacted. The first rule of good law making is to write laws that the are realistically enforceable and the second is to enact only the laws that the people want/or benefit the nation as a whole......not just the gov., the corps., or the lawyers.

You're correct that the law doesn't have to be enacted. But I think that there are good parts to this law

focusedfire wrote:Question, "What do you think of the ndaa?

I haven't spent any time on it, so I really don't have an opinion. It's not really interesting subject matter to me.

A) There is a big difference between "doesn't have to be enacted" and "shouldn't be enacted*"(*paraphrased my quote)

As to there being good parts to this law......I will have to politely disagree.

This is because the fundamental base of this law calls for enforcement outside of U.S. juridiction. In essence the law assumes that the rest of the world is subject to U.S. law.
If the U.S. feels that this is such a problem and that they teally have the nacking of the majority of other soveriegn states then this should be put before the U.N. as a proposed resolution or as a treaty that nations can sign onto like NATO or the EU.

B)Your answer about the ndaa gives the impression that you have a myopic approach to your profession. This is somewhat normal in highly specialized carrer fields.
In essence what I am getting at is that your difficulty in understanding why most people are against this law is that you look at the law in parts, whereas the rest of us are looking at the whole.

Try stepping back and looking at the law from outside your proffession and at the larger whole(big picture).
If you do this you will see that this is a poorly concieved law that seeks to force other nations to operate under U.S. law.

There is a legal term for when one party forces another party to do something against their will when they have no legal right to do such. (Duress)

focusedfire wrote:A) There is a big difference between "doesn't have to be enacted" and "shouldn't be enacted*"(*paraphrased my quote)

Not really, but OK.

focusedfire wrote:As to there being good parts to this law......I will have to politely disagree.

OK.

focusedfire wrote:This is because the fundamental base of this law calls for enforcement outside of U.S. juridiction. In essence the law assumes that the rest of the world is subject to U.S. law.

No, actually it doesn't. The law only calls for enforcement of websites that are directed (and accessible) to US users. There's a long line of cases discussing personal jurisdiction and who is subject to that jurisdiction. This law is saying that anyone who reaches out and provides services to users in the US, knowing that those users are from the US, is subject to US jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is only over US companies and ISPs. If you're a Russian company pirating movies from a server hosted in Russia with advertisers located in Russia and your users are from Russian ISPs, then you have absolutely nothing to fear from this statute.

focusedfire wrote:If the U.S. feels that this is such a problem and that they teally have the nacking of the majority of other soveriegn states then this should be put before the U.N. as a proposed resolution or as a treaty that nations can sign onto like NATO or the EU.

Frankly, feth the UN. They have no authority over the US. Second, enforcement of our laws are not subject to NATO or EU approval. Third, we've already got agreements with the EU (Berne and TRIPs).

focusedfire wrote:B)Your answer about the ndaa gives the impression that you have a myopic approach to your profession. This is somewhat normal in highly specialized carrer fields.

Because I don't know about the NDAA means I don't have the capacity to comment on this law? What's your opinion on the AIA? How about Golan v. Holder? Marine Polymer v. Hemcon? Costco v. Omega?

focusedfire wrote:In essence what I am getting at is that your difficulty in understanding why most people are against this law is that you look at the law in parts, whereas the rest of us are looking at the whole.

If you're looking at the whole, I'm sure you can give me your opinion about that statute and three cases. They're all tremendously important topics in IP law.

But if you're just going to opine on the "major issues," perhaps you could give me your opinion on the Due Process implications of witness identification raised in Perry v. New Hampshire, probably one of the biggest criminal law cases to be considered this term at the Supreme Court.

focusedfire wrote:Try stepping back and looking at the law from outside your proffession and at the larger whole(big picture).
If you do this you will see that this is a poorly concieved law that seeks to force other nations to operate under U.S. law.

Are you really asserting a higher degree of knowledge about a statutory law based on the fact that I analyze statutory law on a daily basis as part of my job? That takes some audacity.

You should learn how to respectfully disagree with someone. Present your arguments in a clear manner, pointing out what parts of the law you think are a problem and why they're a problem. Don't simply assume that your opponent is acting in bad faith, or that they are uneducated (or, for whatever reason, overeducated).

Although I must admit to some admiration to your knowledge about this law beyond "ZOMG THERE GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE INTERWEBZ!!!" (see Wikipedia, et al.)

Chowderhead wrote:You guys (and maybe gals) do know that SOPA has a very low chance of passing, right?

It's a bill that rears its ugly head every single year, and gets closer and closer to passing every time. Such a cancer must be completely and utterly destroyed, and every individual corrupt and incompetent enough to allow it to come even close to letting it pass should never be allowed to work in the position of a governing official ever again.

Megaupload got shut down today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/apnewsbreak-workers-indicted-at-one-of-worlds-largest-file-sharing-sites-megauploadcom/2012/01/19/gIQAJPIRBQ_story.html

@ Biccat: My problems with the mechanics of the US judicial system are as follows (though I may need to expand this to the entire criminal justice system, as some of these fall under the executive branch):

1. Circuit judges requiring election are subject to corruption as it forces them to politicize their decisions, and places them in a position where they must either A) afford massive expenditure to campaign for re-election, or B) join a political ticket, or C) both. Now, option B is obviously problematic, but I believe that A is the worst of these evils, as it allows for judges to be easily bought through political contributions.

2. Privatization of prisons. If a company makes money off of housing offenders, then it is in that company's best interests that there are always more offenders. Therefore, a focus on rehabilitation will take a back seat to incarceration, and the private sector's influence on judges creates an atrocity of the judicial system that fills me with rage. Additionally, some states now allow the parole boards to be employees of the private-sector prisons, in a clear conflict of interest. And third, conditions regarding food, safety, health and housing in privatized prisons are uniformly substandard and bordering on criminal themselves. This is a problem that will always be associated with the private sector, as their goal is not to safely house or rehabilitate offenders, but to make a profit. The US prison-industrial complex is the new slavery.

3. Some states require the original trial judge to also act as the appeals judge as well, another blatant conflict of interest.

I'll add some more later.



EDIT: oh, and "Are you really asserting a higher degree of knowledge about a statutory law based on the fact that I analyze statutory law on a daily basis as part of my job? That takes some audacity." doesn't really do much, because it assumes that people who do their job every day are also good at their job. This is not the case; it just means they repeat a task every day. There is no assumption that the task is performed well. I'm not necessarily saying this is the situation with you, I'm just saying that as a lawyer you ought to understand the semantics of that statement.

You should learn how to respectfully disagree with someone. Present your arguments in a clear manner, pointing out what parts of the law you think are a problem and why they're a problem. Don't simply assume that your opponent is acting in bad faith, or that they are uneducated (or, for whatever reason, overeducated).

Although I must admit to some admiration to your knowledge about this law beyond "ZOMG THERE GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE INTERWEBZ!!!" (see Wikipedia, et al.)

Classy!

This thread has been heating up for a while. Please take the time to reflect on the rules of our site, especially "Be Polite," as you discuss this topic.

Remember: attack the points, not the personalities.

elrabin wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
Is piracy by the Chinese really hurting the economy? Are the consumers in China (or the USA) who are viewing pirated material likely to buy that material if they can't get it for free? Some studies (which I don't have links to) suggest that in 80-90% of cases, no, they'll just do without.
The money that people aren't spending on movies and tv shows, they are still spending on other products in your country (the alternative is that all the pirates are just wandering around with wads of cash in their pockets).

Microsoft estimates that only 10% of the Windows installs in China are legit. (Of course, that figure may be exaggerated a little). Doing without Windows means using what alternative?

I've heard there are other operating systems in the world besides windows. As a software engineer, you may have heard of one called Linux? Which is completely free?

As a software engineer, I can't stand pirating. Not because people pirate software I contribute to (I don't work on consumer software), but because it decreases the value of my work and effectively makes me less money. If companies make less money off the software they produce, they can't pay their engineers as much. Which has the net effect of placing downward pressure on salaries of all software engineers. It doesn't make a difference to me if people are still spending money on US goods -- that doesn't do any good for my industry.
At least for software there are ways we can try to combat piracy ("Cloud" services, pay-for-support, etc). For entertainment, there is no such way.

Consumer facing software industry is devaluing itself without any assistance from pirates. The amount of open source / free software available to consumers is astounding. Why buy Microsoft Office if OpenOffice or GoogleDocs can do the same things for you? Thankfully, most software engineers work on enterprise software which, as you say, isn't affected nearly so much by piracy.

There are plenty of ways to offer good media services which combat piracy. Let people stream any TV show whenever they want, putting ads in the appropriate places: TV over IP. Or let them pay $1-$2 to avoid the ads. Same for movies. Streaming services, subscription services, the whole model is there.
It just might be that the 'BIG' record and movie labels have no place in the internet society. We shouldn't write draconian laws to support the labels' view of how the industry should be. They've attempted to pull this kind of stunt off before (with VHS, Cassette, printing presses...):

MPAA wrote:"...the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
"This is more than a tidal wave. It is more than an avalanche. It is here. Now, that is where the problem is...We are going to bleed and bleed and hemorrhage, unless this Congress at least protects one industry that is able to retrieve a surplus balance of trade and whose total future depends on its protection from the savagery and the ravages of this machine."

They were wrong then, why should we believe them this time?

Howard A Treesong wrote:Megaupload got shut down today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/apnewsbreak-workers-indicted-at-one-of-worlds-largest-file-sharing-sites-megauploadcom/2012/01/19/gIQAJPIRBQ_story.html

I like Megaupload...but why can't they get actual people to check and remove all the illegal movie, mp3 and video game downloads from it?. I mean...if they don't make a good effort then thats a problem.

There are plenty of ways to offer good media services which combat piracy. Let people stream any TV show whenever they want, putting ads in the appropriate places: TV over IP. Or let them pay $1-$2 to avoid the ads. Same for movies. Streaming services, subscription services, the whole model is there.

A lot of people hate subscriptions though. For video games, Free-to-Play models tends to make a game awful too.

For those wondering about Megaupload

"28-OCT-2011 - MegaUpload labelled a 'rogue' site by MPAA.
09-DEC-2011 - MegaUpload releases a music video with RIAA artists endorsing MegaUpload.
10-DEC-2011 - UMG doesn't like the video. Has it removed from YouTube.
12-DEC-2011 - MegaUpload files suit against UMG on the grounds that UMG cannot remove the content as MegaUpload holds the copyright, not UMG.
16-DEC-2011 - UMG says "So what? We can take down whatever we want!" and "You can't touch us. This isn't DMCA. We didn't take it down because of copyright. We took it down because we can."
21-DEC-2011 - MegaUpload labelled a "rogue" site by the USTR.
28-DEC-2011 - MegaUpload wants an explaination from UMG.
19-JAN-2012 - MegaUpload shut down by Feds
I might have missed some points, but this is a pretty full timeline. Feel free to add/correct anything I have here."

(stolen from Reddit)

Squidmanlolz wrote:The odds of these bills being passed in their current form are negligible, they are already being rejected by the Obama administration and a good deal of acting politicians. Don't get me wrong, these bills are monstrosities, but they're not getting passed as is, they will be edited before they can even have a chance.[/quote


I wouldn't count on that. So far, lets evaluate what his greatness has done.

1. Out spent all former presidents combined, and don't blame the two wars or Bush as the reason. There were plenty of wars with the other presidents that are included in their terms.
2. Ended don't ask don't tell. Trust me, makes life in the military more difficult than you would know if you are not in it. Not that I am anti gay, it just isn't needed in the military.
3. Declared himself the 4th best president of all time. WOW!, that guy is either full of delusions or has some balls. He puts himself behind George Washington (shoe in for #1), Lincoln (who really didn't want to end slavery, and, most famously got shot), and JFK (once again, got shot famously however did get America onto the moon).
4. Allowed sodomy and beastiality (yes, sexual intercouse with animals) legal in the military. Did we really need that? At least all the K-9 handlers are happy.

So, is there possibility he would let that happen, Yes. Don't doubt yourself. Internet is a area of unbridled free speech. If you care to voice your opinion (which I know I just did) with no chance of reprisal (which is the current state of the internet) you can do so now. It is a way the government is turning slowly into a socialistic society. This is just one way to for the bama to get his way and crack down. Come on, the dude bailed out businesses that can't make a dime with no one in charge of keeping accountability for the billions of dollars.

Well, just my rant. Obama is not the anti christ but damn, he is trying.