PDA

View Full Version : Help Save The Internet



johnnybgoode83
November 16th, 2011, 04:54 PM
Right now, the US Congress is debating a law that would give them the power to censor the world's Internet -- creating a blacklist that could target YouTube, WikiLeaks and even groups like Avaaz!

http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/?tta

Under the new law, the US could force Internet providers to block any website on suspicion of violating copyright or trademark legislation, or even failing to sufficiently police their users' activities. And, because so much of the Internet's hosts and hardware are located in the US, their blacklist would clamp down on the free web for all of us.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/?tta

The vote could happen any day now, but we can help stop this -- champions in Congress want to preserve free speech and tell us that an international outcry would strengthen their hand. Letís urgently raise our voices from every corner of the world and build an unprecedented global petition calling on US decision makers to reject the bill and stop Internet censorship. Sign now and then forward as widely as possible -- our message will be delivered directly to key members of the US Congress ahead of the crucial vote:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/?tta

Lucradia
November 16th, 2011, 05:05 PM
free speech =/= freedom of choice. Remember that.

The constitution has no portion of it that gives us the freedom of choice.

mips
November 16th, 2011, 06:05 PM
Right now, the US Congress is debating a law that would give them the power to censor the world's Internet

US jurisdiction stops at the US borders, people/companies can always move their servers elsewhere or host outside the country. The USA is NOT the world.

johnnybgoode83
November 16th, 2011, 06:08 PM
US jurisdiction stops at the US borders, people/companies can always move their servers elsewhere or host outside the country. The USA is NOT the world.

Problem is once one country passes such a law it will eventually spread because other governments will see that they can get away with it.

ubupirate
November 16th, 2011, 06:10 PM
US jurisdiction stops at the US borders, people/companies can always move their servers elsewhere or host outside the country.

Welcome to International Treaties.

haqking
November 16th, 2011, 06:15 PM
US jurisdiction stops at the US borders, people/companies can always move their servers elsewhere or host outside the country. The USA is NOT the world.

That is true, though sadly the root zone servers are pretty much run by the US. ICANN have to get root zone change approval from the US Department of Commerce, and ICANN who also run IANA now are all US based.

mips
November 16th, 2011, 07:04 PM
Welcome to International Treaties.

Fortunately not everybody says yes to the USA.


That is true, though sadly the root zone servers are pretty much run by the US. ICANN have to get root zone change approval from the US Department of Commerce, and ICANN who also run IANA now are all US based.

I recall there being a movement a while ago to change this but the US was not budging, where there is a will there is a way. Not that it will be easy.

lisati
November 16th, 2011, 07:09 PM
Where there's a will there's a way. And remember, true freedom recognises the responsibility to do right by self and others.

p.s. Please try to keep politics out of this thread.

forrestcupp
November 16th, 2011, 07:18 PM
The internet has been doomed to a government shutdown ever since the day Al Gore invented it.

forrestcupp
November 16th, 2011, 07:21 PM
Where there's a will there's a way. And remember, true freedom recognises the responsibility to do right by self and others.
Great point. Freedom stops being freedom and becomes license when it takes away someone else's freedom.

XO-2b
November 16th, 2011, 07:29 PM
free speech =/= freedom of choice. Remember that.

The constitution has no portion of it that gives us the freedom of choice.

I'm not an american but you clearly don't understand why you have the constitution you do in the first place. The whole point of it is to keep the government out of personal issues, like speech, and like choice.

So your wrong about the basics, very wrong

DangerOnTheRanger
November 16th, 2011, 07:35 PM
The internet has been doomed to a government shutdown ever since the day Al Gore invented it.

That. is. priceless.

mips
November 16th, 2011, 07:49 PM
The internet has been doomed to a government shutdown ever since the day Al Gore invented it.

Nah, we'll just install new 'tubes' :biggrin:

KiwiNZ
November 16th, 2011, 08:05 PM
I'm not an american but you clearly don't understand why you have the constitution you do in the first place. The whole point of it is to keep the government out of personal issues, like speech, and like choice.

So your wrong about the basics, very wrong

One is free to use a Motorway, but not free to break driving laws.
One is free to use the internet but not free to use to commit crime etc.

false truths
November 16th, 2011, 09:30 PM
Actually.. You have to pass a series of tests, endure a probationary period, and carry a paid license to use a motorway. I fear that is what it's coming to for the internet as well.

XO-2b
November 16th, 2011, 09:33 PM
One is free to use a Motorway, but not free to break driving laws.
One is free to use the internet but not free to use to commit crime etc.


Using that logic, now imagine a different set of laws. Imagine that you and your family goes to a consentration-camp in North-Korea because you dropped a newspaper on the ground that had Kim Yong Ills picture on it.

nice laws you obey. Happy?

Dry Lips
November 16th, 2011, 10:19 PM
At Web censorship hearing, Congress guns for "pro-pirate" Google:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/at-web-censorship-hearing-congress-guns-for-pro-pirate-google.ars

KiwiNZ
November 16th, 2011, 10:31 PM
Using that logic, now imagine a different set of laws. Imagine that you and your family goes to a consentration-camp in North-Korea because you dropped a newspaper on the ground that had Kim Yong Ills picture on it.

nice laws you obey. Happy?

Didn't take long to reach Reductio ad absurdum

Thewhistlingwind
November 16th, 2011, 10:38 PM
Didn't take long to reach Reductio ad absurdum

No, it really didn't.

Anyway, I need to go dig up the addresses and phone numbers of my local political offices. (Read: Congressmen)

dniMretsaM
November 16th, 2011, 10:48 PM
It might be worth noting that this bill won't do squat to stop piracy as any blacklisted site can be accessed by it's numerical IP address. But this is still an extremely bad thing for the Internet and the world! I don't want the entertainment industry who sues 12 year olds for more than the value of their parents' homes controlling the Internet. I don't want ANYONE controlling it, but especially not them.

Phrea
November 16th, 2011, 10:49 PM
p.s. Please try to keep politics out of this thread.

Isn't this all politics to begin with? ;)

koenn
November 16th, 2011, 10:57 PM
Didn't take long to reach Reductio ad absurdum

You make that sound as if a reductio ad absurdum is somehow invalid or otherwise bad.

It's in fact a classical rethorical device and valid if executed correctly - akin to 'indirect proof' in mathematics.

KiwiNZ
November 16th, 2011, 11:45 PM
You make that sound as if a reductio ad absurdum is somehow invalid or otherwise bad.

It's in fact a classical rethorical device and valid if executed correctly - akin to 'indirect proof' in mathematics.


I some context yes

In this context it is :rolleyes:

Lucradia
November 16th, 2011, 11:56 PM
I some context yes

In this context it is :rolleyes:

I lol'd.

SoFl W
November 17th, 2011, 12:06 AM
p.s. Please try to keep politics out of this thread.
You want to discuss something a government is doing and you want to keep politics out of it?


The internet has been doomed to a government shutdown ever since the day Al Gore invented it.
:p

Dry Lips
November 17th, 2011, 12:19 AM
You want to discuss something a government is doing and you want to keep politics out of it?
:p

"Discussions on religion and politics are not allowed, except for politics directly related to free and open source issues."

As the freedom of the Internet is crucial to the FOSS movement,
I think a discussion about this is on topic. But why don't we discuss
the important issues at stake instead of merely discussing our discussion?

Erik1984
November 17th, 2011, 12:30 AM
To put things in an Ubuntu/Linux perspective:



For me, this is even more disturbing, because now it's not just copyright owners going after websites to protect their content (which is bad enough under the "Fourth Amendment? What Fourth Amendment?" aspects of SOPA) but they can also vaporize any software vendor they want from the Internet if they even suspect that software aids software piracy. I look at a BitTorrent client like Transmission, which I use to pull down Linux distros to examine and review, and wonder about its fate in such a climate. There are a bazillion legitimate uses for Transmission and it would silly to deny that some use it to download copyrighted content, too. Is Transmission responsible for that kind of use? If Transmission doesn't enable a way to block such illegal downloads, then by the decision of copyright holders and under the auspices of SOPA, the Transmission developers certainly would be responsible and could be taken down.
http://www.itworld.com/security/223845/piracy-bill-could-waylay-floss-projects

Is the author of that article right about this? Could this new law affect application like Transmission?

Basher101
November 17th, 2011, 12:49 AM
If Transmission doesn't enable a way to block such illegal downloads, then by the decision of copyright holders and under the auspices of SOPA, the Transmission developers certainly would be responsible and could be taken down.

sooo...every weapon manufacturer could be taken down because someone innocent was shot down with their produced gun? I think its just wrong to sue ppl if others misuse their products.

yanom
November 17th, 2011, 02:45 AM
free speech =/= freedom of choice. Remember that.



in what language is =/= "not equals"? Most languages do it != or ~=.

darthchaosofrspw
November 17th, 2011, 03:19 AM
I just had a thought today. If SOPA passes, Ubuntu's websites may end up getting blocked in the United States because certain codecs are available for free download in Ubuntu's vast software repositories.

meh_phistopheles
November 17th, 2011, 03:26 AM
sooo...every weapon manufacturer could be taken down because someone innocent was shot down with their produced gun? I think its just wrong to sue ppl if others misuse their products.

that was an awesome rhetorical slam dunk. i commend you.

but yeah, all this is baloney. i've been saying for the past year or so that all these old farts in congress and our other non-functioning parts of government should not touch or even hear about any law thing related to technology. case in point, all these bogus patent laws that grant apple rights over rectangular objects with touch screen capabilities. that's complete bogus to everyone except those old timers that prescribe to the series of inter-connected tubes theory of the internet.

dniMretsaM
November 17th, 2011, 04:00 AM
Petition here: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/stop-e-parasite-act/SWBYXX55

Signature 33, 874.

CharlesA
November 17th, 2011, 04:28 AM
I wrote congress. Also added the banner to my (small) site.

dniMretsaM
November 17th, 2011, 04:33 AM
Also added the banner to my (small) site.

I'll probably cook something up tomorrow to add to my (also small) blog.

Dr. C
November 17th, 2011, 04:57 AM
Here is a list of companies and organizations that endorse the Protect-IP act courtesy of the MPAA http://image.exct.net/lib/fee913797d6303/m/1/110525_MultiIndustry_S968_PROTECTIPAct_Senate.pdf. If one is not a US Citizen one cannot influence US politicians. On the other hand those corporations and organizations that promote such repressive legislation can be influenced by those who are not US Citizens.

CharlesA
November 17th, 2011, 04:59 AM
Here is a list of companies and organizations that endorse the Protect-IP act courtesy of the MPAA http://image.exct.net/lib/fee913797d6303/m/1/110525_MultiIndustry_S968_PROTECTIPAct_Senate.pdf. If one is not a US Citizen one cannot influence US politicians. On the other hand those corporations and organizations that promote such repressive legislation can be influenced by those who are not US Citizens.
Funny how that works, isn't it?

Dr. C
November 17th, 2011, 05:31 AM
This article (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/244011/the_us_stop_online_piracy_act_a_primer.html) lists some SOPA supporters including the AFL-CIO and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. My emphasis on the word International. There are culprits from both business and labour on this one.

lovinglinux
November 17th, 2011, 11:10 AM
Mozilla has joined the initiative as well

http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2011/11/15/mozilla/

I am not an US citizen, but since most of my web site traffic comes from US, I also added the script.

mips
November 17th, 2011, 02:02 PM
Some articles
The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/opinion/firewall-law-could-infringe-on-free-speech.html?_r=2)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8173)

tjeremiah
November 17th, 2011, 02:16 PM
We need to stop with the arguing and join in to help stop this push from the U.S!

whatthefunk
November 17th, 2011, 02:21 PM
I can think of about a hundred countries that would happily, happily host servers from the states if the price was right and they wouldnt ask a single question.

Rubykuby
November 17th, 2011, 02:35 PM
'That's it, I'm moving to Canada', anyone?

F.G.
November 17th, 2011, 02:38 PM
hmm i feel very confused. as far as i'm aware the internet is not 'american' and cannot belong to a country or organisation. is the 'world internet' referred to access to the world's internet from America? a bit like 'the great firewall of china'?

also don't loads of site with pirated stuff get hosted elsewhere anyway?

haqking
November 17th, 2011, 02:55 PM
hmm i feel very confused. as far as i'm aware the internet is not 'american' and cannot belong to a country or organisation. is the 'world internet' referred to access to the world's internet from America? a bit like 'the great firewall of china'?

also don't loads of site with pirated stuff get hosted elsewhere anyway?

Well no it isnt, however the US and alot of US organisations effectively run and control the Internet kind of. The Internet is not chinese but you ever heard of the Great firewall of China ? ;-)

The root servers for example. see my post #6 http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11462511&postcount=6

but to be honest,i dont really care, it will either not happen or something will happen to get around it, always does.

it is all 1984 blah blah in my opinion

F.G.
November 17th, 2011, 02:58 PM
ok, i think i've figured this out. the Protect IP act is designed to attack the support structure that enables copyright infringement, because they've realised that going after the hosters is a waste of time. So, this means Internet service providers and websites containing links to pirated material (hosted elsewhere).

Yes, i think this sounds like a serious step towards serious information censorship, so, book-burning here we come!

i should point out that i don't think that this is an international issue, particularly, and signing a petition which is not restricted to American citizens is probably a complete waste of time.

(incidentally in the uk politicians have been considering ways to completely 'unplug' telecommunications, in particular areas, if they want to).

F.G.
November 17th, 2011, 03:02 PM
Well no it isnt, however the US and alot of US organisations effectively run and control the Internet kind of. The Internet is not chinese but you ever heard of the Great firewall of China ? ;-)

The root servers for example. see my post #6 http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11462511&postcount=6

but to be honest,i dont really care, it will either not happen or something will happen to get around it, always does.

it is all 1984 blah blah in my opinion
interesting. I stand corrected, while it was created by a brit, apparently these guys own the internet: the US Department of Commerce NTIA. who knew?

anyway i'm sure the likes of TOR and proxies will prevent it from being properly enforceable. just the unlucky unaware people, who post a dodgy link on their websites will get done.

haqking
November 17th, 2011, 03:14 PM
interesting. I stand corrected, while it was created by a brit, apparently these guys own the internet: the US Department of Commerce NTIA. who knew?

anyway i'm sure the likes of TOR and proxies will prevent it from being properly enforceable. just the unlucky unaware people, who post a dodgy link on their websites will get done.

what was created by a brit ? if you are referring to tim berners lee that is the WWW not the Internet. The Internet was born from DARPA (Arpanet) or the American Department of Defence. The first 2 nodes of the Internet though could be argued were Stanford and UCLA

Grenage
November 17th, 2011, 03:26 PM
however the US and alot of US organisations effectively run and control the Internet kind of

Very kind of; it wouldn't take that much for it to change; as there is no reliance. The rest of the world could 'easily' say "Bye Bye" to America's internet involvement - anyone could. :)

F.G.
November 17th, 2011, 03:28 PM
what was created by a brit ? if you are referring to tim berners lee that is the WWW not the Internet. The Internet was born from DARPA (Arpanet) or the American Department of Defence. The first 2 nodes of the Internet though could be argued were Stanford and UCLA
yes, you're right i meant the WWW. i'm sure people have corrected me about this in the past, and yet apparently i never learn.

still it's odd to think of a single organization having so much influence on the internet, still i suppose there has to be some coherent organisation of dns stuff.

haqking
November 17th, 2011, 03:28 PM
Very kind of; it wouldn't take that much for it to change; as there is no reliance. The rest of the world could 'easily' say "Bye Bye" to America's internet involvement - anyone could. :)

of course, i am referring to the current infrastruture of the root domain servers, ICANN, IANA etc etc.

CharlesA
November 17th, 2011, 03:32 PM
but to be honest,i dont really care, it will either not happen or something will happen to get around it, always does.

Yeah, I'm sure it'll happen eventually, probably due to piracy concerns (as usual). Oh and it won't do squat to combat piracy, just make it a royal pain for legit users.

If it's not going to fly for piracy, then it'll pass for child pornography or something else.

The people that write these bills really need to stop using such broad terms and definitions. I know they do it to stop loopholes or something, but it just screws everyone in the end.

haqking
November 17th, 2011, 03:34 PM
Yeah, I'm sure it'll happen eventually, probably due to piracy concerns (as usual). Oh and it won't do squat to combat piracy, just make it a royal pain for legit users.

If it's not going to fly for piracy, then it'll pass for child pornography or something else.

indeed. It is the same as guns or drugs, if you drive it underground it goes underground thats all, it is no harder to come by, it infact increases the crime you were trying to prevent in the first place.

Grenage
November 17th, 2011, 03:34 PM
of course, i am referring to the current infrastruture of the root domain servers, ICANN, IANA etc etc.

Indeed; as horrific as some of that involvement has been.

sffvba[e0rt
November 17th, 2011, 03:37 PM
See redundancy.


404

matt_symes
November 17th, 2011, 03:44 PM
US jurisdiction stops at the US borders, people/companies can always move their servers elsewhere or host outside the country. The USA is NOT the world.

US economic, political and military muscle extends far beyond the borders of the US. It has been the same for every great power throughout history.

That is meant as a truism and not a political statement so please take it as such.


One is free to use a Motorway, but not free to break driving laws.
One is free to use the internet but not free to use to commit crime etc.

This is very true. Peoples livelihoods depend on getting paid for what they produce.

The question of whether people are getting paid too much for what they do and whether companies are profiteering is a different one though.

There has always been piracy though and that will not change because ....


It might be worth noting that this bill won't do squat to stop piracy as any blacklisted site can be accessed by it's numerical IP address. But this is still an extremely bad thing for the Internet and the world! I don't want the entertainment industry who sues 12 year olds for more than the value of their parents' homes controlling the Internet. I don't want ANYONE controlling it, but especially not them.

....it will be quite easy to circumvent using a whole number of methods.

I am all for people paying for what they use if what they use requires a tariff. Anything else is theft. There is no way around this.

Those stealing copyrighted material from others would soon complain if it happened to them.

The reason i am queasy about the proposed bill is because these things tend to have a habit of being amended and extended into areas that they were not originally designed for.

forrestcupp
November 17th, 2011, 03:55 PM
in what language is =/= "not equals"? Most languages do it != or ~=.

I wasn't the one you were replying to, but I understand it. != or <> means "is not equal to" in programming. But in all of my math classes, we wrote "is not equal to" with an equals sign with a slash through it. Since there is no equals sign with a slash through it on a computer keyboard, the closest thing is =/=. I never use that, but I understand where it comes from.

CharlesA
November 17th, 2011, 04:36 PM
indeed. It is the same as guns or drugs, if you drive it underground it goes underground thats all, it is no harder to come by, it infact increases the crime you were trying to prevent in the first place.

Aye. I was going to go off on a tangent about how DRM doesn't actually do anything to prevent piracy since the pirates usually get it cracked from day one, or soon after, and that it just hurts legit users but that's another story. :P

Similar type of thing as this tho.


I wasn't the one you were replying to, but I understand it. != or <> means "is not equal to" in programming. But in all of my math classes, we wrote "is not equal to" with an equals sign with a slash through it. Since there is no equals sign with a slash through it on a computer keyboard, the closest thing is =/=. I never use that, but I understand where it comes from.

That was my understanding too. I either use =|= or =/= to mean "not equal to."

dniMretsaM
November 17th, 2011, 04:36 PM
Article on Lifehacker. (http://lifehacker.com/5860205/all-about-sopa-the-bill-thats-going-to-cripple-your-internet)


I am all for people paying for what they use if what they use requires a tariff. Anything else is theft. There is no way around this.

Those stealing copyrighted material from others would soon complain if it happened to them.

The reason i am queasy about the proposed bill is because these things tend to have a habit of being amended and extended into areas that they were not originally designed for.

There is a huge difference between copying (a.k.a "piracy") and theft. If I walk into Wal-Mart and take a DVD off the shelf and walk out of the store without paying, what are the results? Wal-Mart has one less DVD to sell. However, if I download the same movie from the Internet, Wal-Mart still has the same exact number of DVD's to sell. Now I'm not saying that it's ok to download movies, I'm just saying there is a difference. Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig has some more detailed analogies, I highly recommend reading it! And the bill doesn't need to be amended. Heck, it can already block search engines for showing results that include illegal content (sounds similar to another situation detailed in Free Culture).

F.G.
November 17th, 2011, 05:14 PM
yeah, i think in conventional mathematics (rather than programming) ≠ is used for 'not equals'.

anyhow, having been woefully erroneous so far and only managed to display my ignorance in this thread. i gonna try to stick to opinion:

The IP protection Act appears to be unrelated to actual IP laws, and rather directed at enabling mechanisms to defend against IP contravention through information censorship and attacking the the communication system which allows piracy.

Now, not only for FOSS and OSHW development is this a critical thing but, for all kinds of education, development and communication of ideas, hence all the laws protecting freedom of speech.

IP law itself seems to be critical for free and open source stuff, the GNU General Public Licence and Creative Commons licences would not exists outside of the bounds of copyright law.

so if you want to protect Intellectual Property and freedom of speech / ideas etc as i imagine most Linux users would, why would you want to bring in a heavy handed system to shut down third parties, who are not committing IP offences, but who's actionable activity is actually only passing on information.

i understand that in other extreme cases the popular mass may collectively vote to prohibit links to other kinds of material (paedophillia etc). but what about links to chemistry info (in the wake of terrorism)? or anything deemed 'inappropriate' (for example getting the BBC in Beijing, China is quite a good example of what this kind of thing can mean, particularly as while they have signed up to the Berne convention there is still a massive amount of piracy in China).

I think this approach heavy handed and inadequate. Something like a blank media tax, while not completely fair and not actually preventing piracy, does serve to satisfy both IP and freedom of information concerns (i mean that while piracy goes on, the artists do get paid). I think these guys are trying to maintain a non-functional model through censorship (i doff my cap to the spirit of Heinrich Heine, he knew what was going on).

just my opinion. anyway, if anyone's still reading, thanks for your time and i hope i did bore you too much.

dniMretsaM
November 17th, 2011, 05:30 PM
Just did a Google search for SOPA and went through 5 pages and didn't see a single thing good about it (except some raves about soup). It's obvious the entire tech industry is against this. Then I thought "If this bill passes, Google may not be around to search." :(

F.G.
November 17th, 2011, 05:52 PM
Just did a Google search for SOPA and went through 5 pages and didn't see a single thing good about it (except some raves about soup). It's obvious the entire tech industry is against this. Then I thought "If this bill passes, Google may not be around to search." :(
thats interesting, i did a search and got loads. here's a pic of the first page. i mean i know that language and location specific filtering goes etc. but the first one is the 'Washington Post'.

matt_symes
November 17th, 2011, 05:55 PM
There is a huge difference between copying (a.k.a "piracy") and theft.

I never said there wasn't a distinction between copying and theft.

However, because downloading copyrighted material without paying for it is such a big problem, copying your own media for personal use gets caught in the crossfire.

To distribute copyrighted media, one must first copy it; unless one is reselling original stolen media. That is why the distinction is so blurred in law.

Until one can stop people acquiring copyrighted material without paying for it then companies will always try to stop piracy as it's the first step.

dniMretsaM
November 17th, 2011, 05:55 PM
That article isn't promoting it. It's pretty neutral.

dniMretsaM
November 17th, 2011, 05:58 PM
If you want to contact your congressman but don't know who they are, here's a handy Web site that'll tell you: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

dniMretsaM
November 17th, 2011, 06:09 PM
I never said there wasn't a distinction between copying and theft.

However, because downloading copyrighted material without paying for it is such a big problem, copying your own media for personal use gets caught in the crossfire.

To distribute copyrighted media, one must first copy it; unless one is reselling original stolen media. That is why the distinction is so blurred in law.

Until one can stop people acquiring copyrighted material without paying for it then companies will always try to stop piracy as it's the first step.

Yes you did. You said "anything else is theft." (unless I'm misunderstanding you, which is entirely possible) And how big of a problem is it really? Again, read Free Culture. Specifically this section (http://www.sslug.dk/%7Echlor/lessig/freeculture/piracy.html) relates to my point.

EDIT: No, I am not a pirate. I have something like 0 pirated items an my computer, iPod, etc. If I have anything, it's unknowingly.

thatguruguy
November 17th, 2011, 06:12 PM
Nah, we'll just install new 'tubes' :biggrin:

Speaking of tubes, Google is against this law not just because of the effect on their search engine (which will be significant), but because it will effectively shut down Youtube.

Every time a fan of a particular song makes his or her own video of that song (or reposts a video of the song from some other source), the copyright on the song (and the video, if it is a repost) is being violated. Each one of those fan-made videos will need to be removed, and Youtube will need to ensure that no fan-made video will be posted without permission of the copyright holder.

Larkspur
November 17th, 2011, 06:14 PM
Article on Lifehacker.

There is a huge difference between copying (a.k.a "piracy") and theft. If I walk into Wal-Mart and take a DVD off the shelf and walk out of the store without paying, what are the results? Wal-Mart has one less DVD to sell. However, if I download the same movie from the Internet, Wal-Mart still has the same exact number of DVD's to sell. Now I'm not saying that it's ok to download movies, I'm just saying there is a difference.

I'm not knocking you, but I have a problem with this argument. Using property theft as an analogue for intellectual copyright theft is a common argument used by proponents of illegal downloading, but it is, at best, mistaken. All movies, music and books come with a copyright notice stating something to the effect that the media in question cannot be redistributed by any means without prior consent of the publisher. This is because the content is equally if not more valuable to its producers than the physical media it is sold on. This is true of the consumers too. When you buy a CD or download an mp3, you're not after a blank CD or a certain number of megabytes. Therefore, by choosing to download a movie (or even choosing to upload a movie) you are violating the terms by which it is available, and so taking part in an illegal act.

The rebuttal to this is usually something like "but what about second-hand sales? Lol, am i a criminal if I give a CD to a friend?" In this case, while the record, film and publishing industries might have wanted to go after such exchanges in the past, they have long since accepted that it has some advantages; it spreads awareness of products, for example, and may produce more purchasers for sequels or new works from the same creators.

However, illegal file sharing is a problem of a whole different magnitude. At least with the second-hand trade, the stuff being sold was originally bought at full price. With torrents, one bought product could be distributed again to a potentially endless number of downloaders, the only real limit being how many people are aware of its existence and the bandwidth of the site it is hosted on. This is why the industries involved have pursued online copyright theft so aggressively.

Don't take me for some sort of industry cheerleader; for the past decade or so, the industries concerned have made a number of crucial mistakes that may mean the situation is unrecoverable for them, even if this bill goes through. However, I think it's instructive to look at it from both sides. Some people justify their illegal downloading by pointing to the conduct of the industries without seeing that they are acting as bad or even worse as the people they are complaining about. And you know who is getting caught in the middle? The people who actually produce the things people enjoy.

dniMretsaM
November 17th, 2011, 06:17 PM
Speaking of tubes, Google is against this law not just because of the effect on their search engine (which will be significant), but because it will effectively shut down Youtube.

Every time a fan of a particular song makes his or her own video of that song (or reposts a video of the song from some other source), the copyright on the song (and the video, if it is a repost) is being violated. Each one of those fan-made videos will need to be removed, and Youtube will need to ensure that no fan-made video will be posted without permission of the copyright holder.

Yup. Same with Google Images and Google Video (which are kind of part of the search engine). Not to mention pretty any other site people can post pretty much anything like Facebook. Including this forum, probably, since we tell people how to copy DVD's/CD's/Blu-Rays (the RIAA still claims this is illegal).

CharlesA
November 17th, 2011, 06:18 PM
Speaking of tubes, Google is against this law not just because of the effect on their search engine (which will be significant), but because it will effectively shut down Youtube.

Every time a fan of a particular song makes his or her own video of that song (or reposts a video of the song from some other source), the copyright on the song (and the video, if it is a repost) is being violated. Each one of those fan-made videos will need to be removed, and Youtube will need to ensure that no fan-made video will be posted without permission of the copyright holder.

That would be a bloody nightmare.

Wonder what would happen to lolcats... hmmm...

ubupirate
November 17th, 2011, 06:24 PM
In the United States...

It is legal to make a mix tape with various songs, and give it away to a friend or family member.
It is legal to buy a CD/DVD, and then give it away later whether friend, family or stranger.
It is legal to play music at a house party you are having.
It is legal to have friends or a family over to watch a movie.
It is legal to let your friend or family member borrow a music CD, a game or movie (VHS, DVD, Bluray).

But should someone download a single song off the internet, that person gets fined for millions of dollars and most likely ends up doing time in prison for X years.

And even with millions and millions of people pirating music, movies/TV and games every single minute of every single day...the corporations and artists still pull massive revenues, they still live in mansions, they still drive their $500,000 luxury cars and they are richer than any average person in the US could ever hope to achieve in multiple lifetimes.

dniMretsaM
November 17th, 2011, 06:24 PM
I'm not knocking you, but I have a problem with this argument. Using property theft as an analogue for intellectual copyright theft is a common argument used by proponents of illegal downloading, but it is, at best, mistaken. All movies, music and books come with a copyright notice stating something to the effect that the media in question cannot be redistributed by any means without prior consent of the publisher. This is because the content is equally if not more valuable to its producers than the physical media it is sold on. This is true of the consumers too. When you buy a CD or download an mp3, you're not after a blank CD or a certain number of megabytes. Therefore, by choosing to download a movie (or even choosing to upload a movie) you are violating the terms by which it is available, and so taking part in an illegal act.

The rebuttal to this is usually something like "but what about second-hand sales? Lol, am i a criminal if I give a CD to a friend?" In this case, while the record, film and publishing industries might have wanted to go after such exchanges in the past, they have long since accepted that it has some advantages; it spreads awareness of products, for example, and may produce more purchasers for sequels or new works from the same creators.

However, illegal file sharing is a problem of a whole different magnitude. At least with the second-hand trade, the stuff being sold was originally bought at full price. With torrents, one bought product could be distributed again to a potentially endless number of downloaders, the only real limit being how many people are aware of its existence and the bandwidth of the site it is hosted on. This is why the industries involved have pursued online copyright theft so aggressively.

Don't take me for some sort of industry cheerleader; for the past decade or so, the industries concerned have made a number of crucial mistakes that may mean the situation is unrecoverable for them, even if this bill goes through. However, I think it's instructive to look at it from both sides. Some people justify their illegal downloading by pointing to the conduct of the industries without seeing that they are acting as bad or even worse as the people they are complaining about. And you know who is getting caught in the middle? The people who actually produce the things people enjoy.
This entire post is based on the assumption that illegal downloading is the biggest problem since the holocaust. Although I do agree that second hand sales are mostly different.

dniMretsaM
November 17th, 2011, 06:27 PM
In the United States...

It is legal to make a mix tape with various songs, and give it away to a friend or family member.
It is legal to buy a CD/DVD, and then give it away later whether friend, family or stranger.
It is legal to play music at a house party you are having.
It is legal to have friends or a family over to watch a movie.
It is legal to let your friend or family member borrow a music CD, a game or movie (VHS, DVD, Bluray).

But should someone download a single song off the internet, that person gets fined for millions of dollars and most likely ends up doing time in prison for X years.

And even with millions and millions of people pirating music, movies/TV and games every single minute of every single day...the corporations and artists still pull massive revenues, they still live in mansions, they still drive their $500,000 luxury cars and they are richer than any average person in the US could ever hope to achieve in multiple lifetimes.

Sadly, this is very true. Although you can only go to prison for distributing, not just downloading.

matt_symes
November 17th, 2011, 06:27 PM
Yes you did. You said "anything else is theft." (unless I'm misunderstanding you, which is entirely possible) And how big of a problem is it really? Again, read Free Culture. Specifically this section (http://www.sslug.dk/%7Echlor/lessig/freeculture/piracy.html) relates to my point.

Taken slight out of context..


I am all for people paying for what they use if what they use requires a tariff. Anything else is theft. There is no way around this.

But i can understand how what i said may be misconstrued.

Until theft of copyrighted material stops then the companies will try to stop any copying of media and using any means possible.

That's just the way is it.

Like i said, i don't like the proposed law but i can understand any person, company, government wanting to protect something they spent time and money creating. My main concern is extensions and amendments to the law over time.

As the Internet is the main distribution channel for this, it is this they are targeting, ostensibly to protect their investment.

I'm not saying it's right, however that is the reality of it.

ubupirate
November 17th, 2011, 06:29 PM
Sadly, this is very true. Although you can only go to prison for distributing, not just downloading.

I believe it was a few years ago, I read that an 18 year old female was facing prison time and a multi-million dollar lawsuit for 5 songs she downloaded off the internet when she was 13 or so.

Larkspur
November 17th, 2011, 06:32 PM
This entire post is based on the assumption that illegal downloading is the biggest problem since the holocaust. Although I do agree that second hand sales are mostly different.

Oh, did I have to list all the problems I thought were greater than illegal downloading before I could talk about it? :o I thought my post was long enough as it is.:wink:

Yes, there are many greater problems than that. In fact, there are even some greater problems than google having to restructure their sites and hire more people.

dniMretsaM
November 17th, 2011, 06:34 PM
I believe it was a few years ago, I read that an 18 year old female was facing prison time and a multi-million dollar lawsuit for 5 songs she downloaded off the internet when she was 13 or so.

BitTorrent (which is probably what she used) uploads (distributes) the content while downloading. So it's just kind of a technicality. However, the law could have changed, but I don't think so (I've been wrong before though). But either way, it's still ridiculous. The RIAA can go die in a hole for all I care.

dniMretsaM
November 17th, 2011, 06:36 PM
Oh, did I have to list all the problems I thought were greater than illegal downloading before I could talk about it? :o I thought my post was long enough as it is.:wink:

Yes, there are many greater problems than that. In fact, there are even some greater problems than google having to restructure their sites and hire more people.

No. You simply should realize that "piracy" isn't that huge of a deal. See the link I posted a few posts before yours.

prodigy_
November 17th, 2011, 06:50 PM
Still thinking that the US is a democracy? Think again. ;)

P.S. Sorry for bringing politics into a political thread.

dniMretsaM
November 17th, 2011, 06:52 PM
Still thinking that the US is a democracy? Think again. ;)

P.S. Sorry for bringing politics into a political thread.

It's funny because tools that pro-democracy groups use in places like China and Iran (such as TOR) will be blocked in the USA.

KiwiNZ
November 17th, 2011, 07:22 PM
This thread has drifted into general Politics.

"Politics and Religion: These two topics have caused serious problems in the past and are now forbidden topics in the forums. Please find another venue to exercise your freedom of speech on these topics."

Thread closed