18th jan. web on strike

[Cyprine]

anti sopa strika
http://americancensorship.org/

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Couldnt believe it when I saw this on wikipedia. Shut down for a day. Even Google is blacked out (but still useable)..



oh in btl

[Arnhelm]

Several sites are shut down today. Imagine if they were shut down permanently, and you get the idea.

[donblas]

Wikipedia tells you how to work around the blackout, if you read their letter.

[LordMond63]

I've followed the debate only slightly, so I claim to be no expert here.

I heard an interview with a representative of Wikipedia, and his example of what he termed "censorship" was that Wiki could get shut down if it did not comply with the government's request to remove a reference and link to a website that actively promotes the piracy of intellectual properties such as songs, movies and software.

OK...I get that Wiki might want to have an article on such p2p file sharing sites, but to link to them? How can that not be seen as enabling, if not promoting, theft if copyrighted intellectual property? Help me to understand the logic here if you would.

[SardaofChaos]

I've followed the debate only slightly, so I claim to be no expert here.

I heard an interview with a representative of Wikipedia, and his example of what he termed "censorship" was that Wiki could get shut down if it did not comply with the government's request to remove a reference and link to a website that actively promotes the piracy of intellectual properties such as songs, movies and software.

OK...I get that Wiki might want to have an article on such p2p file sharing sites, but to link to them? How can that not be seen as enabling, if not promoting, theft if copyrighted intellectual property? Help me to understand the logic here if you would.

They don't even need to not comply with a takedown request to be shut down. Hell, there doesn't even need to be a takedown request in the first place. Anyways, Wikipedia is more joining in because the very idea of an encyclopedia anyone can edit kinda requires a free internet and all that jazz.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

As a musician I'm torn on this one.

Many love their free mp3s and movies and games. However, its those nice enough to pay for an artist's work that will put food on his/her table and feed his/her children.

Unfortunately this can inadvertently hurt many small honest businesses and instantly and permanently. A web site can be turned off ina matter of seconds - gone forever.

For example, Youtube would not be able to exist, period.

As a young or old musician alike, Youtube is the modern day music agent. It's helped revive careers dormant since the 70s (such as my favorite guitar-man, Leslie West) and made new stars. It does serve a legitimate service to the community.

This bill is filled with a lot of garbage not related. I hope they throw it under the bus... with the exception of instilling effective piracy measures that will appropriately punish those that want something for nothing.

In other words, it needs to be re-written to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

[katana_one]

I've followed the debate only slightly, so I claim to be no expert here.

I heard an interview with a representative of Wikipedia, and his example of what he termed "censorship" was that Wiki could get shut down if it did not comply with the government's request to remove a reference and link to a website that actively promotes the piracy of intellectual properties such as songs, movies and software.

OK...I get that Wiki might want to have an article on such p2p file sharing sites, but to link to them? How can that not be seen as enabling, if not promoting, theft if copyrighted intellectual property? Help me to understand the logic here if you would.

The problem, as already alluded to above, is that NO notice is required at all. The offending site simply finds itself blacklisted one day. And good luck getting your good name reinstated - the bill(s) provide for no process for having a wrongfully accused domain turned back on, nor provides any punishment for those who would abuse the proposed system to shut down rival sites.

Here's an example of one scenario that opponents of the bill(s) are afraid of.

Say you found this really cool video from another MMO on YouTube, and decided to share it here in the Off-topic chat forum. So you post a link.

Now say that this other game company decides that the video on YouTube violates their copyright. The game company can have YouTube blacklisted under these proposed measures - without even having to give YouTube any notice. But it doesn't stop there! Because it's linked on the forums HERE, now Turbine is obligated to take the link out of your post, and any other link to YouTube anywhere on the forums because YouTube is now blacklisted. If Turbine fails to keep links to YouTube off the forums, then DDO.com runs the risk of being blacklisted as well.

Proponents of the bills say that isn't how it works and the above scenario isn't what they're after. Opponents of the bill say that its worded so poorly, that the above scenario is not only possible, but practically unavoidable.

[Osharan_Tregarth]

There are a lot of reasons why this bill is a complete failure, but I'll just list some of them here.

The supposed money gains that would come from "cracking down" on piracy are almost a complete fabrication, from beginning to end.

They start from a fairly dubious report, and then are chain multiplied using some extremely questionable methods.

One example.. When Joe the consumer buys a cd for 10 dollars, the math that they use says that that's a net gain for the market of 19 dollars. Because they took that 10 dollars.. Gave 5 to company A. Gave 2 to company B. And 2 to company C.



One part of the Bills are supposed to be targetting "rogue" websites that sell counterfeit goods, etc.

Here's some stuff from the Monster Cable website, one of the strong supporters of this bill.

Consumers Beware!
Purchasing products from unauthorized sellers may result in you receiving counterfeit or fake products. These products have not been manufactured by Monster nor do they meet Monster's exacting standards for quality and performance. We have experienced countless occasions where our customers thought they were buying genuine products from these websites, only to find out that what they bought was in fact fake. We strongly urge you to buy from Authorized Dealers so you can be sure you get exactly what you paid for.

On this list are(among many others)
EBay
Craigslist
Fatwallet
Pricegrabber
Computershopper
Costco.com
Sears.com

This bill, as written.. Could allow someone like monster to convince a judge somewhere of the infinging status of those websites, and they would be immediately delisted. No appeal beforehand, no notice, nothing. It would be up to the website owners to take up the fight to get their sites back online.

[MRH]

***This comment has been censored and removed***


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cb7x...layer_embedded

[NarakuSama]

As a musician I'm torn on this one.

Many love their free mp3s and movies and games. However, its those nice enough to pay for an artist's work that will put food on his/her table and feed his/her children.

Unfortunately this can inadvertently hurt many small honest businesses and instantly and permanently. A web site can be turned off ina matter of seconds - gone forever.

For example, Youtube would not be able to exist, period.

As a young or old musician alike, Youtube is the modern day music agent. It's helped revive careers dormant since the 70s (such as my favorite guitar-man, Leslie West) and made new stars. It does serve a legitimate service to the community.

This bill is filled with a lot of garbage not related. I hope they throw it under the bus... with the exception of instilling effective piracy measures that will appropriately punish those that want something for nothing.

In other words, it needs to be re-written to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

as a soon to be book publisher i know what it is the fear of having your work stolen and get nothing for it but sadly many singers today dont sell music anymore but sell other things if you know what i mean...
another thing is this: many of the good singers that i listen to dont sell their music in my country so i am forced to download it or atleast listen online on sites like YouTube.
if they were to sell in my country i would go to buy a CD insted of download.
now for the mp3: what if i did went to buy a CD and downloaded the file to pc and then to my mp so i can hear it anytime i want? i paid for it already so logic say its legal.

and now outside music: PIPA and SOPA wont stop piracy, it will only make it worst! and will give politicans and other strong people the power to do whatever they want.
it will soon go from copyright "protection" to personal view protection and here protection mean to force one's view on others by any mean neccesary!
it will soon target people for their political views / religion / or whatever idea they have.
what will be then? forget games, music, YouTube and Facebook... the moment they take down the internet will be the moment they will make us toys.
even their so called "protected movies" wont be so protected.. after all someone powerfull will watch it and will decide if it fits his views or not before allowing to to be broadcast.

time for evryone to draw swords and protect the internet
Free Internet roll call!

[AMDarkwolf]

well the world IS ending (OR has been predicted) sometime this year right? If the internet goes down ... lol


Truth is the bill is more than just what was outlined above. It also has the power to 'kill' any website where a private individual has made any contribution, each and every website would be, by this bill, required to have someone on-site, monitoring the website and screening out any links, personal data, private uploads, etc, which will cause costs to RUN a site to skyrocket(Even if only by the salary of the person needed) That ALONE can kill off MANY of the websites you might take for granted.

Say bye any and ALL 'free' websites you know of, all those free forums, anything without a big name like 'msn, google, yahoo' behind it. Say goodbye to them all and imagine the net with ONLY google, yahoo, msn, amazon, etc. No more, no less. JUST those big names with the cash behind them.

Still liking sopa and pita? I really think everyone, not just American's, should really, really read both bills.

Now this pair of useless bills real target is exactly that, controlling any and all of the net, its NOT about piracy, since this will do little, if anything to actually STOP it. Thats the saddest thing. Think of it this way. Nation A wants control/access to Nation B's natural resources, Nation A decides to accuse Nation B of 'threatening the worlds safety' Nation A invades Nation B looking for 'this threat'

[LordMond63]

I appreciate all the of the replies...they're educating me to a point of view which frankly I had not considered.

However, there still seems to be a common thread interwoven through the replies opposing these acts (if not the intent of them at least the way they would accomplish their state goals) is that people seem still to be supporting piracy via p2p file transfer sites. If you're going to defend the right to steal someone else's IP, I think you're going to have a difficult time convincing people that you're for entrepreneurship and the right of every individual to succeed to the absolute maximum their innate abilities give them.

Now, as said in another post on this subject, my opposition to these bills is based on the questionable need for more laws. Seems to me that we have an abundance of laws already on the books protecting IP, so why not do a better job of enforcing them rather than pass a whole new batch of them? If China or another country is a particular problem- and there can be no question that they are- then amend the current laws to deal with those particular threats. But do we need MORE laws?

As to You Tube being shut down due to someone posting a video with a copurighted song playing in the background, I think that would be covered by existing "fair use" laws, which permit excerpted quoting on copyrighted materials provided there is no attempt to make a profit from their unauthorized use. If someone tried to sell said video, then yes there is a problem. But if it is up there merely to entertain- with no profit motive- then there is no problem here.

I do agree that there should be a legal process to make a charge and that the person/entity being charged should have the right to defend themselves. If indeed no notice is required, then I could not support the bill due to a lack of Constitutionally-guaranteed Due Process.

Again, love the discussion here.

[katana_one]

As to You Tube being shut down due to someone posting a video with a copurighted song playing in the background, I think that would be covered by existing "fair use" laws, which permit excerpted quoting on copyrighted materials provided there is no attempt to make a profit from their unauthorized use. If someone tried to sell said video, then yes there is a problem. But if it is up there merely to entertain- with no profit motive- then there is no problem here.

You are aware that there are videos on YouTube currently that have had their audio removed entirely by site mods in the name of copyright protection? Videos whose creators probably thought they fell under "fair use" as you describe? And this is *without* SOPA or PIPA being passed. The fact is that we are already at a point where some site operators would rather self-censor than risk legal action. And it's probably going to get worse before it gets better.

YouTube has been doing this since at least 2009.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...dio_tracks.php