Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.