SOPA (WARNING: Experimental thread; highly moderated)

[billvon 2,400]

>I guess I'm late for the party, but After reading through this thread and a
>little research, it appears to me that this legislation might give the teeth
>we need to finally shut down the bogus, fraudulent websites that Skyride
>and their aliases run.

Yes, it could. It could also give Skyride the teeth it needs to shut down, say, Skydive Arizona's website. All Skyride has to do is claim that a comment on the Skydive Arizona website links to a skydiving video with a copyrighted song in the background and - boom! - no more website.

Of course Skydive Arizona could then go to court, and perhaps get their website back in a few months. In the meantime Skyride could help people find places to skydive.

The potential for abuse is one of the biggest problems with this bill.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Now let's say you had an organization that profited from people obeying the speed limit. And instead of a single speed limit, they decided to push for other laws to prevent people from enabling speeders. They passed a law that required gas stations to monitor the speed of local drivers and not sell gas to speeders. They required local toll roads to impound cars that got from point A to point B faster than the speed limit. They allowed parking lots to confiscate your car if they saw you speeding - and protected those parking lots from prosecution if they took your car erroneously.

Would you support that?

Which one of my half-dozen posts where I've said I cannot/do not support SOPA or PIPA did you miss?
I don't support the model. I do support the idea of very strict laws for theft of IP.
However, the original assertion (paraphrased) was that "since people will always find ways of pirating...we don't need laws anyway" is pretty silly. People can always find ways to get into your pockets, speed down the highway, or get into your bank or credit card account.

Because "people will always find ways" to do something, does that mean we as a society of laws, should not make laws to prosecute those that "do find ways?" Would you support that?

If we had a system through which everyone's paycheck value was controlled by social access to it, I'm sure we'd see a very different attitude about piracy.

[Jumpdude 0]

Quote

Yes, it could. It could also give Skyride the teeth it needs to shut down, say, Skydive Arizona's website. All Skyride has to do is claim that a comment on the Skydive Arizona website links to a skydiving video with a copyrighted song in the background and - boom! - no more website.

Of course Skydive Arizona could then go to court, and perhaps get their website back in a few months. In the meantime Skyride could help people find places to skydive.

The potential for abuse is one of the biggest problems with this bill.

VERY good point. The question I have is if enough people complained to whatever Government agency would be overseeing this law (Should it pass), would that trump sLyride trying to shut someone else's site down?

Also, I beg to differ, sLyride takes their money and does very little to help anyone find a place to skydive.

Refuse to Lose!!!
Failure is NOT an option!
1800skyrideripoff.com
Nashvilleskydiving.org

[Coreece 190]

WAY TO GO WIKI!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Please contact your representatives...they can be reached through the wiki link provided above. Thanks.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

WAY TO GO GOOGLE!

https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

Please sign the petition above. Thanks!

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[lurch 0]

I'm impressed. Wikipedia's act- finally, telling the government fuck no, you go too far. And backing it up with a demonstration threat: Back off or we pull the plug.

Seeing this, I thought, wouldn't it be awesome if Google did the same, dug its heels in a little and jerked their chain instead of rolling over like they did with the chinese censorship stuff?
I stop by google to look for something else, and...
Googles not shut down, but they've also gone black in solidarity. I think the government's in for a painful lesson, that you can't beat arrest or pepperspray an internet protest.
Purely symbolic, would have been MUCH more effective if Google shut down for a day, but wonderful to see.

The people coming up with laws like these, they never stop, they never give up, they get shot down and 5 more bills like it take their place, an endless march of more confiscation, registration, control, things like the NDAA sail right through, completely ignoring what used to be the Bill of Rights and has become the "Bill of conditionally revokable privileges you -may- be allowed to purchase permits for, IF you can afford the lawyers". For every scrap of freedom temporarily preserved, ten are lost and next year there will be another SOPA or NDAA or PATRIOT or whatever to make sure to strip away that last scrap.

Its just satisfying to see actual, effective defiance and resistance for once. Especially since almost all forms of defiance and resistance are, of course, felonies these days.

To quote Savio, "And you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who own it, and the people who run it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

Wikipedia just did that. They indicated it loud and clear. I hope to see this grow.


I wonder if the government is going to go after the US Wiki staff, threaten em with being charged as disruptive internet terrorists for withdrawing that which they provided for free in the first place...

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[billvon 2,400]

>I don't support the model. I do support the idea of very strict laws for theft of IP.

OK. So far we have basic copyright law. We also have DMCA, passed in 1998, which:

-criminalizes any system that attempts to bypass digital rights management
-increases penalties for any copyright infringement on the Internet
-allows courts to require websites to remove links to infringing sites
-protects website owners from legal action if they remove infringing material
-extends the reach of copyrights by increasing the authority of the copyright office.

We also have the WIPO treaty which extends Internet copyright protection worldwide.

So what new laws do we need?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

VERY good point. The question I have is if enough people complained to whatever Government agency would be overseeing this law (Should it pass), would that trump sLyride trying to shut someone else's site down?

oversight would be dispersed among the courts nationwide. It would be easier for bigger companies or those hellbent on their mission (like the company that stole the 800 number of a dead person?) to take advantage of such a landscape.

[Skwrl 56]

Am I the only one that found it amusing that the experimental moderated (i.e., censored) thread is about an bill that, if passed in the form it is in, would permit massive censorship?

Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Am I the only one that found it amusing that the experimental moderated (i.e., censored) thread is about an bill that, if passed in the form it is in, would permit massive censorship?

Maybe...I don't see it that way. Bill did it so that this thread would stay on topic. It's not really a partisan issue, with support from idiots from both sides of the aisle, but threads here have a tendency to derail into them. So he did an experiment. Not sure if he drew any conclusions from it that may show up in future threads.

Blocking the hosting of copywrited materials is not something I consider to be censorship. I see it more about due process and the unfortunate lack thereof in the bill, in the name of the greater good (or bottom line for media corps).

[Fast 0]

Quote

Quote

Now let's say you had an organization that profited from people obeying the speed limit. And instead of a single speed limit, they decided to push for other laws to prevent people from enabling speeders. They passed a law that required gas stations to monitor the speed of local drivers and not sell gas to speeders. They required local toll roads to impound cars that got from point A to point B faster than the speed limit. They allowed parking lots to confiscate your car if they saw you speeding - and protected those parking lots from prosecution if they took your car erroneously.

Would you support that?

Which one of my half-dozen posts where I've said I cannot/do not support SOPA or PIPA did you miss?
I don't support the model. I do support the idea of very strict laws for theft of IP.
However, the original assertion (paraphrased) was that "since people will always find ways of pirating...we don't need laws anyway" is pretty silly. People can always find ways to get into your pockets, speed down the highway, or get into your bank or credit card account.

Because "people will always find ways" to do something, does that mean we as a society of laws, should not make laws to prosecute those that "do find ways?" Would you support that?

If we had a system through which everyone's paycheck value was controlled by social access to it, I'm sure we'd see a very different attitude about piracy.

Despite any of my other statements, I agree that there should be laws against and penalties for copyright violations. It's one of the reasons that I got my dz to switch to stock music that we actually paid for. I just didn't think it was right for us to be making money off music / etc that we didn't own and I didn't want us to have to deal with any problems that might arise from it.

It would serve to raise the "cost" of pirating and it would deter more people towards buying things. Still doesn't change the fact that I wish media companies would do more to embrace where the technology is going though.

I would love to be in a position to start a content generating company because I think it's a market that is ripe for the picking if you are able to follow the technology. I think hulu and netflix have the right idea with starting original programming.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[Bertt 0]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16642369

This goes a long way toward answering your question. Especially the last paragraph of the article.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[Stumpy 256]

I found this http://mashable.com/2012/01/17/sopa-dangerous-opinion/ was a good discussion of why this is so bad.

The summary is as follows, but the whole thing, and the bill itself is worth reading.

"SOPA:

Gives the government the right to unilaterally censor foreign websites.
Gives copyright holders the right to issue economic takedowns and bring lawsuits against website owners and operators, if those websites have features that make it possible to post infringing content.
Makes it a felony offense to post a copyrighted song or video.
This bill turns us all into criminals. If it passes, then you either stop using the Internet, or you simply hope that you never end up in the crosshairs, because if you’re targeted, you will be destroyed by this bill. You don’t have to be a big, mean, nasty criminal — common Internet usage is effectively criminalized under this law. This bill will kill American innovation and development of the Internet, as it will become too risky to do anything of value. It is toxic and dangerous, and should not, under any circumstances, be supported.

I hope that this helps you to more clearly understand why SOPA is bad. Rhetoric is efficient, but you should know what you’re opposing and why you’re opposing it. It’s difficult to read and understand, but if you care about the Internet, free speech and personal freedom at all, you owe it to yourself to understand and oppose SOPA."

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[shropshire 0]

Quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16642369

This goes a long way toward answering your question. Especially the last paragraph of the article.

BOOOOOO to the New Zealand government/police for Kowtowing to the American government. Stick to within your own borders you Fascist C**ts!!!!!!!

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[GeorgiaDon 340]

I know a few people who use sites like Megaupload legitimately to park large data files so research collaborators can access the data. Don't know if they specifically have used Megaupload, or just something similar. I wonder, if the site gets shut down then do all the legitimate users lose access to their own data? Of course they have it backed up, but it'd still be quite disruptive.

When the US government seizes failing banks, they don't just shut them down and deny depositors access to their accounts, they send in people with expertise to clean them up. I suppose there's no way to do that with these internet operations, develop tools to ID and delete specific accounts that contain significant amounts of pirated material while preserving access for legitimate clients? I realize there's significant legal barriers involved in dealing with off-shore sites, but it sure sucks for legitimate users to be penalized the same as (and because of) the illegitimate users.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>I don't support the model. I do support the idea of very strict laws for theft of IP.

OK. So far we have basic copyright law. We also have DMCA, passed in 1998, which:

-criminalizes any system that attempts to bypass digital rights management
-increases penalties for any copyright infringement on the Internet
-allows courts to require websites to remove links to infringing sites
-protects website owners from legal action if they remove infringing material
-extends the reach of copyrights by increasing the authority of the copyright office.

We also have the WIPO treaty which extends Internet copyright protection worldwide.

So what new laws do we need?

We need a new law that undoes the damage the DMCA does to legitimate activities like reverse engineering, decryption for playback of legally purchased content e.g. DeCSS and prevents abuse like encrypting trivial data to activate anti-circumvention clauses and eases the massive widespread abuse of DMCA takedowns, and offers stronger safe-harbor to legitimate 3rd parties.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I know a few people who use sites like Megaupload legitimately to park large data files so research collaborators can access the data. Don't know if they specifically have used Megaupload, or just something similar. I wonder, if the site gets shut down then do all the legitimate users lose access to their own data? Of course they have it backed up, but it'd still be quite disruptive.

I'm betting those people are SOL. Hopefully they weren't stupid and deleted local copies.

A lot of the fly by night cloud storage companies disappear abruptly, and that data is gone forever. Even with the major players (Amazon, for instance), you shouldn't rely on them as the only copy. But if you're using the 50G for free guys, shouldn't go a single day without local copies of everything.

[Coreece 190]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4Ehl24D4b0&feature=related

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

WAY TO GO GOOGLE!

https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

Please sign the petition above. Thanks!

Another request to sign the petition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_TnwNBJZZOU

Takes him about 30 seconds to get semi-serious.

Vulgarities are NSFW

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[DSE 3]

His ignorance of copyright is hilarious.

"If you upload a photo of you and a friend and Beyonce' is in the background, that's copyrighted shit, and they'll take that picture and the website down."

Fearmongering and bullshit when the truth is powerful enough.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

His ignorance of copyright is hilarious.

"If you upload a photo of you and a friend and Beyonce' is in the background, that's copyrighted shit, and they'll take that picture and the website down."

Fearmongering and bullshit when the truth is powerful enough.

Yes, but what people are being told by lay people does not place him far off the mark.

Quote

There’s actually a provision that says that an ordinary user can go to jail for five years for posting any copyrighted work

http://www.copyblogger.com/sopa/

Admittedly, since this was first posted, I had to do a lot of self-educating - which is why I hadn't jumped in sooner. Course, it's kind of a moot point at this time, but we can never discount Washington's posturing for excess in the first draft. I've been on all three sides of the copyright issue (third one being the... for educational purposes clause).

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Andy9o8 0]

Neil Young: Piracy is the "new radio".

http://gigaom.com/2012/01/31/neil-young-is-right-piracy-is-the-new-radio/?mrefid=