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.
Why hit the best part of the economy? Because the music and film industry put a lot more lobbying in on this issue than the web companies did..and it all boils down to money
www.mi40k.com for pickup games and tournaments
3000+
bombboy1252 wrote:Anon is going to have a field say if this gets passed, I'm just waiting for Anon to hack into the pentagon if this bill gets passed..............
And I hope they all get a bullet to their head, I'm still not over the PSN hack.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
halonachos wrote:Guy Fawkes would not be amused, seriously, that's a nice way to capitalize on his image and go against what he stood for.
We're anonymous because we all went to our hot topic and bought this mask.
Do go on. You're doing your point justice and I am not wanting you to hang yourself with your own words. At all. I am completely serious. Continue.
I personally don't like how Guy Fawkes is portrayed now and days. The guy wanted to blow up Parliament, not for individual power, but to get the Catholics back into power in England by assassinating the king and the parliament. To use the mask to represent the idea of the power of the individual is to misrepresent what he stood for, he didn't want to be anonymous, he tried to get Spain to support his actions after all, and I doubt he would be amused by the acts of anonymous.
We burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year, and Anonymous are doing him a disservice!? Our Government hanged him by the neck until he was near death, disemboweled him, cut off his genitals, then chopped him into four pieces, finally displaying his head on a spike outside the Tower of London. I hardly think he'd give a gak about a bunch of nerds wearing his visage as a mask.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Albatross wrote:Wait, do we have the right to steal other people's intellectual property now, or something? If it's overpriced, just go without. It's not like we're talking about food and water here, we're talking about movies, music and games - diversions. Diversions which also happen to be commercial products.
Perhaps we should all just grow up a little.
To me it's not entirely that cut and dry. I know you have a personal stake in this one and I mean no disrespect towards it...
Woah, woah, hang on - this is nothing to do with my decision to give away Dresden's music. We did that because it seemed like a nice way to build a little good will towards us, and I'm satisfied that it has seemed to. However, the point is this: That was my choice and my decision. Giving away one's intellectual property for free should be at the discretion of the artist. Of course, the consumer is entitled to get that product for as cheap as he/she possibly can, but you've got to accept that by downloading it for free without permission, you've broken the law, and stolen from the creators of the work. It's just that cut and dried.
but there are somethings that I would not have spent money on because I was only half-heartedly interested in them and gone without, save that I could see them for free. If I'm not going to spend the money anyway (and only I know if I would or not, which is where "integrity" comes in here IMO), what have I cost anyone? I've told people about things I've seen for free and they have actually bought it themselves purely on my recommendation; it's not always the case, but it happens. Not everyone is "responsible" in the same way that I am, but I think it really needs to come down to finding a way to enforce punishment for abuse rather than restricting the ability to legitimately do things as well.
Well, isn't this a way to punish abuse? By forcing ISPs to shut down websites that routinely infringe upon other people's rights? There is no legitimate way to steal another's property, is there? It doesn't matter if you were going to purchase that album later, you stole it now. That's not your only recourse - you could go to Spotify (or similar). You can stream music there for free and the artists get a royalty. It's a great way to hear new stuff without stealing.
Albatross wrote:
Woah, woah, hang on - this is nothing to do with my decision to give away Dresden's music. We did that because it seemed like a nice way to build a little good will towards us, and I'm satisfied that it has seemed to. However, the point is this: That was my choice and my decision. Giving away one's intellectual property for free should be at the discretion of the artist. Of course, the consumer is entitled to get that product for as cheap as he/she possibly can, but you've got to accept that by downloading it for free without permission, you've broken the law, and stolen from the creators of the work. It's just that cut and dried.
The bill is overreaching and designed to be abused. Take a look at it. It really is about the worst kind of 'protection' you could hope for. I'm not getting into the ethics of downloading the latest Britney album (or whatever is on Billboard nowadays), but I could if you'd like.
Well, isn't this a way to punish abuse? By forcing ISPs to shut down websites that routinely infringe upon other people's rights? There is no legitimate way to steal another's property, is there? It doesn't matter if you were going to purchase that album later, you stole it now. That's not your only recourse - you could go to Spotify (or similar). You can stream music there for free and the artists get a royalty. It's a great way to hear new stuff without stealing.
Dragging people into the street and shooting them in front of their neighbors is also a way to punish abuse. It's about as inappropriate as this is. Again, not trying to debate ethics of 'stealing' music, merely how horrible a piece of legislature the *AA paid for.
Albatross wrote:
Woah, woah, hang on - this is nothing to do with my decision to give away Dresden's music. We did that because it seemed like a nice way to build a little good will towards us, and I'm satisfied that it has seemed to. However, the point is this: That was my choice and my decision. Giving away one's intellectual property for free should be at the discretion of the artist. Of course, the consumer is entitled to get that product for as cheap as he/she possibly can, but you've got to accept that by downloading it for free without permission, you've broken the law, and stolen from the creators of the work. It's just that cut and dried.
The bill is overreaching and designed to be abused. Take a look at it. It really is about the worst kind of 'protection' you could hope for. I'm not getting into the ethics of downloading the latest Britney album (or whatever is on Billboard nowadays), but I could if you'd like.
You could try, but I've pretty much summed it up already. Any other position is nigh on indefensible. You do NOT have the right to steal, no matter how over-priced you think that Yo La Tengo album is.
I don't doubt that this piece of potential legislation could be open to abuse, but that's a completely separate argument from the one I'm making. Some people are complaining that this bill will prevent them from stealing. That's a childish reason to oppose this bill. THAT is the point I'm making.
Well, isn't this a way to punish abuse? By forcing ISPs to shut down websites that routinely infringe upon other people's rights? There is no legitimate way to steal another's property, is there? It doesn't matter if you were going to purchase that album later, you stole it now. That's not your only recourse - you could go to Spotify (or similar). You can stream music there for free and the artists get a royalty. It's a great way to hear new stuff without stealing.
Dragging people into the street and shooting them in front of their neighbors is also a way to punish abuse. It's about as inappropriate as this is. Again, not trying to debate ethics of 'stealing' music, merely how horrible a piece of legislature the *AA paid for.
By comparing it to 'dragging people out into the street and shooting them'?
Please. It (quite justifiably, I might add) allows private individuals and companies to protect their property by shutting down websites (or sites who link to them) who's only (or main) purpose is to allow people to traffic it illegally. How is that draconian? No-one's constitutional rights are being infringed upon. The only people who's rights HAVE been trampled on are the people who work hard to create art only to see it stolen by entitled over-grown manchildren. Artists and their representatives have the legal right to control their intellectual property, not you, and certainly not the people with TB hard-drives full of stolen films and music.
Sorry guys, but the party's over, and I for one couldn't be happier.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I can't wait for the American Right to tie themselves in knots over this!
'hrghh...It protects enterprise...nnnggh...but Obama did it!! gfnghh....'
/head explode
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/11/17 14:51:41
(1) Sorry guys, but the party's over, and I for one couldn't be happier.
Also, I can't wait for the American Right to tie themselves in knots over this!
(2) 'hrghh...It protects enterprise...nnnggh...but Obama did it!! gfnghh....'
/head explode
(1) I'm all for protecting itellectual property and culling piracy. I just want them to take their time with the bill so there isn't some stupid line item that will harm legitimate businesses due to some wrongful or unintended interpretation of the bill.
(2) Like all fiscally conservative republicans, I'm going to pretend that it was the Republicans in congress that came up with the bill and passed it while I stick my fingers in my ears and say "La, la, la...can't hear you!!"
bombboy1252 wrote:Anon is going to have a field say if this gets passed, I'm just waiting for Anon to hack into the pentagon if this bill gets passed..............
And I hope they all get a bullet to their head, I'm still not over the PSN hack.
They didn't do that. They tried for months, but the PSN hack took skill, not DDOSing.
You could try, but I've pretty much summed it up already. Any other position is nigh on indefensible. You do NOT have the right to steal, no matter how over-priced you think that Yo La Tengo album is.
Theft and software piracy are not the same thing. They never have been. Copyright infringement is not theft except insofar as the RIAA has lobbied to make it so.
Please. It (quite justifiably, I might add) allows private individuals and companies to protect their property by shutting down websites (or sites who link to them) who's only (or main) purpose is to allow people to traffic it illegally. How is that draconian?
It would allow them to shut down youtube and virtually any other user centric content upload service in existence (including this one). That's not only draconian, its idiotic and creates a business landscape of uncertainty while giving the litigious nature of the corporate world just one more weapon with which to do illegitimate business.
No-one's constitutional rights are being infringed upon.
Freedom and speech and assembly. This site could be shut down for aiding in the piracy of GW products (which it does by existing).
Sorry guys, but the party's over, and I for one couldn't be happier.
Because you don't ever look into the direct implications of the things you support.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/11/17 15:21:03
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Albatross wrote: I don't doubt that this piece of potential legislation could be open to abuse, but that's a completely separate argument from the one I'm making. Some people are complaining that this bill will prevent them from stealing. That's a childish reason to oppose this bill. THAT is the point I'm making.
And its a fantastic point, I'm sure. Doesn't mean we need to give corporations and the government carte blanche to censor the internet over it.
Fine, you want to keep arguing this? You're absolutely right. You have zero right to it. Can we please move on?
Please. It (quite justifiably, I might add) allows private individuals and companies to protect their property by shutting down websites (or sites who link to them) who's only (or main) purpose is to allow people to traffic it illegally. How is that draconian? No-one's constitutional rights are being infringed upon. The only people who's rights HAVE been trampled on are the people who work hard to create art only to see it stolen by entitled over-grown manchildren. Artists and their representatives have the legal right to control their intellectual property, not you, and certainly not the people with TB hard-drives full of stolen films and music.
Quite justifiably? I hope you're trying to convince yourself, not me. And it won't even fix things. People who wish to pirate will still find a way. The bill talks about seizing domain names, for feths sake. Circumventing that is braindead easy. Check this out: http://74.125.226.50 . Alternatively, there are independent DNS servers that are outside of the jurisdiction of this bill, and if they try a technical angle beyond DNS, there's other options such as IRC, darknets, decentralized protocols, and god know what else that's not actually been invented yet. The 'internet' IS more than just port 80 and port 53, you know.
Long as there is a demand, there will be a method. What this WILL do though is allow companies and the government to make it much harder to find sites that are inconvenient to them. If I get taken down because of the page I have speaking out against Monsanto (for example), it becomes popular, and Monsanto wants to kill it, then I'm down, have to fight a costly battle to get up, not being able to get my message out all the while.
It kind of reminds me of the DMCA. The DMCA was quite justifiable and 'merely' allows people to protect their own content, right?
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:As I revisited this topic the lyrics that come from my randomized playlist are:
All this time has whittled away
Like so many days in one
Back and forth the leaders sway
Backing it up with guns
Superpowers flex their wings
Hold the world on puppet strings
Egos will feed
While citizens bleed
That's always the way it goes
...surreal
When will the world listen to reason, I have a feeling it'll be a long time
When will the truth come into season, I have a feeling it'll be a long time
The Offspring - It'll be a long time
As written in 1992ish
And that is why you hear people yelling FOR THE EMPEROR rather than FOR LOGICAL AND QUANTIFIABLE BASED DECISIONS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE MAJORITY!
Phototoxin wrote:Kids go in , they waste tonnes of money on marnus calgar and his landraider, the slaneshi-like GW revel at this lust and short term profit margin pleasure. Meanwhile father time and cunning lord tzeentch whisper 'our games are better AND cheaper' and then players leave for mantic and warmahordes.
daveNYC wrote:The Craftworld guys, who are such stick-in-the-muds that they manage to make the Ultramarines look like an Ibiza nightclub that spiked its Red Bull with LSD.
Albatross wrote:We burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year, and Anonymous are doing him a disservice!? Our Government hanged him by the neck until he was near death, disemboweled him, cut off his genitals, then chopped him into four pieces, finally displaying his head on a spike outside the Tower of London. I hardly think he'd give a gak about a bunch of nerds wearing his visage as a mask.
He won't give a gak because he was disemboweled! That was all well and good, but he knew the risks of what he was going to do before he did it, he was a real hardcore Catholic.
You could try, but I've pretty much summed it up already. Any other position is nigh on indefensible. You do NOT have the right to steal, no matter how over-priced you think that Yo La Tengo album is.
Theft and software piracy are not the same thing. They never have been. Copyright infringement is not theft except insofar as the RIAA has lobbied to make it so.
Illegally gaining ownership of another's property is NOT theft. Cool, gotcha. So... What is it?
It's amazing the lengths some people will go to simply to justify not paying for something that they are supposed to pay for.
Please. It (quite justifiably, I might add) allows private individuals and companies to protect their property by shutting down websites (or sites who link to them) who's only (or main) purpose is to allow people to traffic it illegally. How is that draconian?
It would allow them to shut down youtube and virtually any other user centric content upload service in existence (including this one).
Only if youtube does not take sufficient steps to combat the copyright infringement that takes place on its watch. There are legitimate ways to host music videos on youtube, all of which require the expressed permission of the person or persons who own the content. And so they should. You don't get to decide who owns what.
That's not only draconian, its idiotic and creates a business landscape of uncertainty while giving the litigious nature of the corporate world just one more weapon with which to do illegitimate business.
Or it could excise a massive leech on the culture industries in your country. It's too early to tell.
No-one's constitutional rights are being infringed upon.
Freedom and speech and assembly. This site could be shut down for aiding in the piracy of GW products (which it does by existing).
Is operating a shop that distributes illegal goods protected speech? Does that apply to websites too? What about websites that feature child porn? Or bomb-making instructions? No-one's saying that people can't say what they want, only that they can't copy and distribute IP that doesn't belong to them. Is that so unfair?
Sorry guys, but the party's over, and I for one couldn't be happier.
Because you don't ever look into the direct implications of the things you support.
Albatross wrote:We burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year, and Anonymous are doing him a disservice!? Our Government hanged him by the neck until he was near death, disemboweled him, cut off his genitals, then chopped him into four pieces, finally displaying his head on a spike outside the Tower of London. I hardly think he'd give a gak about a bunch of nerds wearing his visage as a mask.
He won't give a gak because he was disemboweled! That was all well and good, but he knew the risks of what he was going to do before he did it, he was a real hardcore Catholic.
Who gives a rodent's fundament what Fawkes would have thought? He was psychotic. Of all the things to criticise Anonymous for, corrupting the image of Fawkes isn't one of them. I doubt most of them even know who he is.
DC:80SG+M+B+I+Pw40k97#+D+A++/wWD190R++T(S)DM+
htj wrote:You can always trust a man who quotes himself in his signature.
Albatross wrote:
I don't doubt that this piece of potential legislation could be open to abuse, but that's a completely separate argument from the one I'm making. Some people are complaining that this bill will prevent them from stealing. That's a childish reason to oppose this bill. THAT is the point I'm making.
And its a fantastic point, I'm sure. Doesn't mean we need to give corporations and the government carte blanche to censor the internet over it.
We don't and we aren't. This bill doesn't do that, and to suggest otherwise is nothing short of hysterical. But then, that's just you being you.
Please. It (quite justifiably, I might add) allows private individuals and companies to protect their property by shutting down websites (or sites who link to them) who's only (or main) purpose is to allow people to traffic it illegally. How is that draconian? No-one's constitutional rights are being infringed upon. The only people who's rights HAVE been trampled on are the people who work hard to create art only to see it stolen by entitled over-grown manchildren. Artists and their representatives have the legal right to control their intellectual property, not you, and certainly not the people with TB hard-drives full of stolen films and music.
Quite justifiably? I hope you're trying to convince yourself, not me. And it won't even fix things. People who wish to pirate will still find a way. The bill talks about seizing domain names, for feths sake. Circumventing that is braindead easy. Check this out: http://74.125.226.50 . Alternatively, there are independent DNS servers that are outside of the jurisdiction of this bill, and if they try a technical angle beyond DNS, there's other options such as IRC, darknets, decentralized protocols, and god know what else that's not actually been invented yet. The 'internet' IS more than just port 80 and port 53, you know.
Excellent attempt to blind me with IT jargon there, sport. I am un-cowed. Yes it IS justifiable for people to try and protect their intellectual property. The only arguments to the counter I've heard so far are 'it's unfair because now I can't download an album to see if I like it', which is irrelevant, and 'this could lead to the whole internet being censored!!', which is risible. This slope is simply not that slippery. And yes, it may be possible to circumvent this legislation. And? That's part of the Game. There has to be more than one side in the Game, otherwise we just throw up our hands and declare that property is theft.
What this WILL do though is allow companies and the government to make it much harder to find sites that are inconvenient to them. If I get taken down because of the page I have speaking out against Monsanto (for example), it becomes popular, and Monsanto wants to kill it, then I'm down, have to fight a costly battle to get up, not being able to get my message out all the while.
Wow. That's really got nothing to do with this situation at all. You're pretty paranoid, huh?
And with any luck, your band will sign with a major label and enjoy all the prestige, wealth, and fame that goes along with it.
Be as sarcastic as you want, but it's people like me that you would gladly steal from. Don't expect me to sympathise with your 'cause'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
htj wrote:
halonachos wrote:
Albatross wrote:We burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year, and Anonymous are doing him a disservice!? Our Government hanged him by the neck until he was near death, disemboweled him, cut off his genitals, then chopped him into four pieces, finally displaying his head on a spike outside the Tower of London. I hardly think he'd give a gak about a bunch of nerds wearing his visage as a mask.
He won't give a gak because he was disemboweled! That was all well and good, but he knew the risks of what he was going to do before he did it, he was a real hardcore Catholic.
Who gives a rodent's fundament what Fawkes would have thought? He was psychotic. Of all the things to criticise Anonymous for, corrupting the image of Fawkes isn't one of them. I doubt most of them even know who he is.
Yeah, plus:
'Bin Laden wouldn't give a gak because he was shot in the face! That was all well and good, but he knew the risks of what he was going to do before he did it, he was a real hardcore Muslim.'
Not as romantic, eh? Fawkes was a terrorist and a traitor. I spit on his grave.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/17 17:45:55
Illegally gaining ownership of another's property is NOT theft. Cool, gotcha. So... What is it?
Copyright infringement. There are dramatic differences in form, function, and the possibility of law enforcement. They haven't been treated the same for the last 100 years and it's suddenly stealing now that a useless middleman industry is losing it's shirt? Cry me a river. This is business lobbying to change the rules to stay relevant, not a great reversal of peoples views on theft.
It's amazing the lengths some people will go to simply to justify not paying for something that they are supposed to pay for.
No. It's amazing how much legal and historical revisionism people that defend the media industries go through, and how many logical hoops they have to jump in order to equate copying and theft. You know what I steal when I download a song? Nothing. Nothing is lost. I am using my own equipment to copy something. Is that illegal? Sure, why not, lots of things are. But equating it to theft to make it somehow intellectually easier to understand and label is just dumb.
Only if youtube does not take sufficient steps to combat the copyright infringement that takes place on its watch.
Yes, a service through which a third of all internet traffic goes through can easily vet the terabytes that are uploaded to it every minute. Clearly that wouldn't take hundreds of thousands of lawyers on full time pay.
There are legitimate ways to host music videos on youtube, all of which require the expressed permission of the person or persons who own the content.
And this law punishes google for hosting a service people can misuse. It doesn't really punish the people. It can't. Not on that scale.
And so they should. You don't get to decide who owns what.
And you don't get to decide who Jwalks. Lets put a policeman on every street corner on earth.
Is operating a shop that distributes illegal goods protected speech?
I dunno. Is youtube illegal? Is Dakka? Comcast? They all do.
Does that apply to websites too?
Does it? If I post a poster I copied from the internet on your car window should it be impounded?
What about websites that feature child porn? Or bomb-making instructions?
Or fonts? Did you know that under these proposed laws a site could be brought to court for an illegally used font on a jpeg stored in its servers? Do you know what fonts you have legal access too? I do graphic design for a living and I'm not even sure!
Did you know that the .gif file format is proprietary and theoretically every website in creation could be illegal under these laws?
No-one's saying that people can't say what they want, only that they can't copy and distribute IP that doesn't belong to them. Is that so unfair?
Yes. It functionally breaks the internet. The most common video codec on earth is proprietary. Did you know that?
What's your basis for that statement?
You don't seem to know where copyright ends and begins and exactly how much of your day to day life violates a copyright. There's a reason these are business cases and not law enforcement. What matters is damages, not your petty sense of moral outrage at all the theivery going on. The internet has been one of the greatest generators of wealth the western world has ever seen and you're diving in front of a bullet headed towards industry executives that haven't had a purpose in 20 years and risking the entirety of it.
Good job.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/17 18:00:00
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
While I'm generally on the side of the artists in cases such as this, giving an entity that isn't the judiciary organ the power to shut down web pages because they feel like it should be such an obviously bad idea that I cannot fathom how it's an issue in the first place. Dealing with crime is the job of the police and court system, not Warner Brothers.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Albatross wrote:
Illegally gaining ownership of another's property is NOT theft. Cool, gotcha. So... What is it?
It's amazing the lengths some people will go to simply to justify not paying for something that they are supposed to pay for.
It's academic, as I've already stated my opinion on the matter, but as long as you're going to continue, I'll bite: Is the actual theft to acquire property belonging to someone, or to deprive someone of property?
Or it could excise a massive leech on the culture industries in your country. It's too early to tell.
Indeed it is. However, it's not too early to tell what damage perpetual copyright extension has done to culture. There was a time, a long time ago where culture was fostered by people wishing to generate culture, not revenue. If you were good, you were commissioned to continue doing whatever it was that you did. That's why we have classical music and folklore. I mean, Christ, imagine if you were getting sued by ASSCAP for reenacting "The Tempest". There was a time when people freely swapped stories, songs, and ideas. Culture shouldn't be a buy-in. And culture obviously survived those dark and scary days. Who's to say it won't again?
Is operating a shop that distributes illegal goods protected speech? Does that apply to websites too? What about websites that feature child porn? Or bomb-making instructions? No-one's saying that people can't say what they want, only that they can't copy and distribute IP that doesn't belong to them. Is that so unfair?
You guys remember that apologist I mentioned on the first page and how to spot him? Here's a fun thought: This bill is designed for copyright. You've already cited 'useful' methods of tackling other evil things with it. Congratulations, you've misused it already. I bet it would be great for stopping 'terrorism' too.
If you want an anti-kiddie porn bill, make an anti-kiddie porn bill. Alternatively, write that into this one. Better still, use the already existing laws that cover that stuff already. DON'T make a vague bill that could be used for all of these 'wonderful' things.
Furthermore, you trumpet out "constitutional rights" (as if that means anything anymore) but where does it actually state anywhere in the constitution or the bill of rights anything about having a right to your own ideas? A cursory glace did not reveal it to me.
And that's what copyright was really supposed to be: a compromise. You're trading public awareness of your ideas in exchange for limited protection to profit off of them, and then they go to public domain, for the good of all. There was nothing about being able to live off of a single creation in perpetuity. Now it just hampers derivative works and, if anything, discourages innovation. It's almost as terrible as patent law is nowadays.
Sorry guys, but the party's over, and I for one couldn't be happier.
Because you don't ever look into the direct implications of the things you support.
What's your basis for that statement?
I could copy and paste my above post showing you, but you'd ignore it a second time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
Quite justifiably? I hope you're trying to convince yourself, not me. And it won't even fix things. People who wish to pirate will still find a way. The bill talks about seizing domain names, for feths sake. Circumventing that is braindead easy. Check this out: http://74.125.226.50 . Alternatively, there are independent DNS servers that are outside of the jurisdiction of this bill, and if they try a technical angle beyond DNS, there's other options such as IRC, darknets, decentralized protocols, and god know what else that's not actually been invented yet. The 'internet' IS more than just port 80 and port 53, you know.
Excellent attempt to blind me with IT jargon there, sport. I am un-cowed. Yes it IS justifiable for people to try and protect their intellectual property. The only arguments to the counter I've heard so far are 'it's unfair because now I can't download an album to see if I like it', which is irrelevant, and 'this could lead to the whole internet being censored!!', which is risible. This slope is simply not that slippery. And yes, it may be possible to circumvent this legislation. And? That's part of the Game. There has to be more than one side in the Game, otherwise we just throw up our hands and declare that property is theft.
Indeed. You ARE most certainly un-cowed in my most skillful attempt at offering facts showing why this bill is futile at best. Here's a hint, if you don't understand how something works, you probably shouldn't attempt to make an argument against it one way or another. My troll meter is kind of going off at this point.
What this WILL do though is allow companies and the government to make it much harder to find sites that are inconvenient to them. If I get taken down because of the page I have speaking out against Monsanto (for example), it becomes popular, and Monsanto wants to kill it, then I'm down, have to fight a costly battle to get up, not being able to get my message out all the while.
Wow. That's really got nothing to do with this situation at all. You're pretty paranoid, huh?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:As I revisited this topic the lyrics that come from my randomized playlist are:
All this time has whittled away
Like so many days in one
Back and forth the leaders sway
Backing it up with guns
Superpowers flex their wings
Hold the world on puppet strings
Egos will feed
While citizens bleed
That's always the way it goes
...surreal
When will the world listen to reason, I have a feeling it'll be a long time
When will the truth come into season, I have a feeling it'll be a long time
The Offspring - It'll be a long time
As written in 1992ish
btw Cannerus when did you turn into alice cooper?
Last weekish? I started getting into him more this last summer really though. I love rebellion songs in general (made a playlist for a bunch of occupier friends to blare for the hell of it ).
Okay the government will probably destroy the internet. Dakkadakka will most likely be taken down by the government. Everything will be taken down that offends a major company. Just a simple complaint will destroy a website.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Illegally gaining ownership of another's property is NOT theft. Cool, gotcha. So... What is it?
Copyright infringement. There are dramatic differences in form, function, and the possibility of law enforcement. They haven't been treated the same for the last 100 years and it's suddenly stealing now that a useless middleman industry is losing it's shirt? Cry me a river. This is business lobbying to change the rules to stay relevant, not a great reversal of peoples views on theft.
You can dance around it all you like, but there is a clear moral equivalence between copyright infringement and 'theft' (which is a pretty broad term per se) - it is the illegal appropriation of another's property. It's irrelevant that the owner is not deprived of his/her property by your actions (though your ability to copy it at will does devalue it) - you have no right to copy it without the owners permission. If the means to obtain it for free were not there then you would have had to pay for the property, therefore you have deprived the copyright holder of that revenue.
Only if youtube does not take sufficient steps to combat the copyright infringement that takes place on its watch.
Yes, a service through which a third of all internet traffic goes through can easily vet the terabytes that are uploaded to it every minute. Clearly that wouldn't take hundreds of thousands of lawyers on full time pay.
Correct. Clearly it wouldn't because, clearly, they already have mechanisms in place with which to monitor and filter content. Clearly. Also, doesn't the wording of the bill refer only to sites which are intended solely, or mostly, for the purpose of illegal distribution of IP?
Is operating a shop that distributes illegal goods protected speech?
I dunno. Is youtube illegal? Is Dakka? Comcast? They all do.
Do what? Exist for the purpose of infringing copyright? If so, then yeah, why not?
Does that apply to websites too?
Does it? If I post a poster I copied from the internet on your car window should it be impounded?
What's on the poster?
What about websites that feature child porn? Or bomb-making instructions?
Or fonts? Did you know that under these proposed laws a site could be brought to court for an illegally used font on a jpeg stored in its servers? Do you know what fonts you have legal access too? I do graphic design for a living and I'm not even sure!
I use the open source gak I got with Ubuntu.
In any case, I think that would probably fall under Fair Use, considering the purpose of fonts.
Did you know that the .gif file format is proprietary and theoretically every website in creation could be illegal under these laws?
OK, now you're being silly. But intriguing...
To Google (if it's still there)!
No, apparently it's open now, and has been since 2004. Phew!
No-one's saying that people can't say what they want, only that they can't copy and distribute IP that doesn't belong to them. Is that so unfair?
Yes. It functionally breaks the internet. The most common video codec on earth is proprietary. Did you know that?
No. So? What does that have to do with SOPA? Are you honestly saying this legislation will be used to shut down any website that uses the aforementioned codec? I think that you and both know that that is a massive stretch.
What's your basis for that statement?
You don't seem to know where copyright ends and begins and exactly how much of your day to day life violates a copyright.
OK, stop right there. You are incorrect. Simply using another person's intellectual property is not an infringement of their rights, so stop trying to pretend that it is. That is simply not true.
There's a reason these are business cases and not law enforcement. What matters is damages, not your petty sense of moral outrage at all the theivery going on. The internet has been one of the greatest generators of wealth the western world has ever seen and you're diving in front of a bullet headed towards industry executives that haven't had a purpose in 20 years and risking the entirety of it.
Y'see the thing I find most confusing is that you people seem to think I'm on some sort of crusade on behalf of The Man, or something. Do you think I honestly give a gak about your hard-drive full of stolen gak? You couldn't be more wrong. As was alluded to before, my band gave away it's first album. As part of the process, we were featured on a pretty major torrent site as a 'featured artist' - they asked, we said yes. It did us a lot of good. I have no particular axe to grind with pirates, but pirates are what they are. They are law-breakers. They're not on some righteous crusade against big business, liberating culture from the money men. They're digital shoplifters, pure and simple. Now, I'm cool with that. I break the law all the time - if some copper nicks me when I've got a big bad of the good stuff in my pocket, then so be it. I know the risks. What irks me is that all this crying from certain quarters is based on not being able to get free stuff anymore. Well, boo-hoo. That's the game. You're allowed to break the law, they're allowed to try and catch you.
...
On reflection, that was kind of rude of me, daedalus. Apologies. I've removed it. Sufficed to say, I think you have some strange ideas about culture.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/11/18 01:22:56
The government can order service providers to block websites for infringing links posted by any users.
Risk of Jail for Ordinary Users
It becomes a felony with a potential 5 year sentence to stream a copyrighted work that would cost more than $2,500 to license, even if you are a totally noncommercial user, e.g. singing a pop song on Facebook.
Chaos for the Internet
Thousands of sites that are legal under the DMCA would face new legal threats. People trying to keep the internet more secure wouldn't be able to rely on the integrity of the DNS system.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
You can dance around it all you like, but there is a clear moral equivalence between copyright infringement and 'theft' (which is a pretty broad term per se) - it is the illegal appropriation of another's property. It's irrelevant that the owner is not deprived of his/her property by your actions (though your ability to copy it at will does devalue it) - you have no right to copy it without the owners permission. If the means to obtain it for free were not there then you would have had to pay for the property, therefore you have deprived the copyright holder of that revenue.
I fundamentally disagree that copyright violation is theft. It wasn't for the vast majority of human history, yet it suddenly is in the last ten years? No. You are borrowing a moral equivalence from a PR firm. Do you know why adobe doesn't take legal action against the distributors "stealing" its platform? It's because it's built an empire on zero advertisement software sales generated by being the most pirated software manufacturer in history. Many major anime studios turn a blind eye to the 'theft' of their products because they drive sales. Many artists encourage the 'theft' of their material because it provides them an outlet for spreading their brand beyond the often times strict record industry contracts that started this whole storm of gak in the first place.
Copyright infringement is the breakage of a financial law that if proven in court can lead to the payment of damages. Theft is when you take someones property. You can't steal the future and you can't steal what might have been.
Correct. Clearly it wouldn't because, clearly, they already have mechanisms in place with which to monitor and filter content. Clearly. Also, doesn't the wording of the bill refer only to sites which are intended solely, or mostly, for the purpose of illegal distribution of IP?
I've watched full movies a week before they came out on youtube. I've watched entire television series. I've watched unlicensed sports clips. I've watched unlicensed software tutorials. Like half of all music on youtube violates copyrights.
Organizations including Viacom, Mediaset, and the English Premier League have filed lawsuits against YouTube, claiming that it has done too little to prevent the uploading of copyrighted material.[136][137][138] Viacom, demanding $1 billion in damages, said that it had found more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of its material on YouTube that had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times". YouTube responded by stating that it "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works".[139] During the same court battle, Viacom won a court ruling requiring YouTube to hand over 12 terabytes of data detailing the viewing habits of every user who has watched videos on the site. The decision was criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which called the court ruling "a setback to privacy rights".[140][141] In June 2010, Viacom's lawsuit against Google was rejected in a summary judgment, with U.S. federal Judge Louis L. Stanton stating that Google was protected by provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Viacom announced its intention to appeal the ruling.[142] Since Viacom filed its lawsuit in 2008, YouTube has introduced the "Video ID" system, which checks uploaded videos against a database of copyrighted content with the aim of reducing violations.[143]
One hundred and fifty thousand clips violating just viacoms IP. You think the real numbers not in the tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions for videos violating any copyright?
Do what? Exist for the purpose of infringing copyright? If so, then yeah, why not?
Provide and facilitate services that aid in the distribution of copyrighted material and provide webspace for downloaders and distributors.
What's on the poster?
A picture of bono and a QR code that downloads "like a G6" onto your phone.
In any case, I think that would probably fall under Fair Use, considering the purpose of fonts.
It doesn't. Those things can be well over 1000 dollars. Typeface copyrights are a truly awful creature.
OK, now you're being silly. But intriguing...
To Google (if it's still there)!
No, apparently it's open now, and has been since 2004. Phew!
Oh, cool. How about the rich text format then? RAR? There are a still non public holdouts that are ludicrously ubiquitous.
No. So? What does that have to do with SOPA? Are you honestly saying this legislation will be used to shut down any website that uses the aforementioned codec? I think that you and both know that that is a massive stretch.
There are lawsuits on h264s wiki page and of course I am. It will happen. It won't happen because the use of the codecs or file formats does any real damage, but it will give ammo to private companies to compromise the free speech of competitors and it will hypercharge what is already one of the most litigious industries in the history of mankind. You don't need to sue someone for a just reason to do damage for them. All you need is a cause and the ability to keep them in court. The technology industry swims in this kind of lawsuit. It's their ambrosia.
OK, stop right there. You are incorrect. Simply using another person's intellectual property is not an infringement of their rights, so stop trying to pretend that it is. That is simply not true.
Then how is it also theft? Are we drawing a line now between what you find acceptable and unacceptable use of someone elses intellectual property? That line is utterly and impossibly ambiguous and it's what SOPA is based on. It's a line that is exploitable and damaging. There's a reason every major technology company you can name is against these laws despite them being ostensibly to protect online services and providers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/18 03:24:00
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
It is also of note that Viacom uploaded a large portion of the clips that they claim violate their copyright themselves.
Technology has always found ways to create new inventions and ways to infringe on copyrights. The entertainment industry has fought every one of them, but the evil pirates won. If it would be up to the legacy industries we would not have such platant pirating tools like:
The Player Piano
The Record Player
The Tape Recorder
The Movie Camera
Radio
TV
Cable TV
The VCR
The DVR
Zip Drives
USB Sticks
Writable CDs and DVDs
Every single one of these was fought tooth and nail by the legacy industries. Every single one of them was going to be the death of them. Even now Piracy is going to kill the industry, even though it still makes more money every year than the year before.
If they would adapt to technology instead of trying to hold it back, they might make even more money...
Albatross wrote:
You can dance around it all you like, but there is a clear moral equivalence between copyright infringement and 'theft' (which is a pretty broad term per se) - it is the illegal appropriation of another's property. It's irrelevant that the owner is not deprived of his/her property by your actions (though your ability to copy it at will does devalue it) - you have no right to copy it without the owners permission.
Well, legally, the deprivation of property is the crux of theft. Its also a significant moral distinction, given that, while I might pirate your song you still have the capacity to use it for profit. Compare this to stealing your car, in which case your ability to use your car is permanently curtailed.
Albatross wrote:
If the means to obtain it for free were not there then you would have had to pay for the property, therefore you have deprived the copyright holder of that revenue.
Well, not necessarily. What you've really done is deprive them of potential revenue. In essence, the person obtaining the media in question for free may have purchased it in the absence of such means, or he may not have; there's no way of knowing.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
halonachos wrote:Guy Fawkes would not be amused, seriously, that's a nice way to capitalize on his image and go against what he stood for.
We're anonymous because we all went to our hot topic and bought this mask.
Do go on. You're doing your point justice and I am not wanting you to hang yourself with your own words. At all. I am completely serious. Continue.
I personally don't like how Guy Fawkes is portrayed now and days. The guy wanted to blow up Parliament, not for individual power, but to get the Catholics back into power in England by assassinating the king and the parliament. To use the mask to represent the idea of the power of the individual is to misrepresent what he stood for, he didn't want to be anonymous, he tried to get Spain to support his actions after all, and I doubt he would be amused by the acts of anonymous.
The mask represents not the individual but the collective consciousness of 'group', comparison can be drawn between anon and the alpha legion, if everyone is the same, than how do you kill the leaders?
Horst wrote:This is how trolling happens. A few cheeky posts are made. Then they get more insulting. Eventually, we revert to our primal animal state, hurling feces at each other while shreeking with glee.
3000+
750 points
1000 Points
Do go on. You're doing your point justice and I am not wanting you to hang yourself with your own words. At all. I am completely serious. Continue.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
