Reply With Quote
It has begun
There is a storm coming
Do we really want to play the odds on this thing, If the bill passes, it would give them the right to do so. And what makes you think user boards like S.T. wouldn't be targeted?
Right now, these are the same group of guys responsible for getting youtubers banned for posting videos of themselves performing crappy covers. the same people who make it an offense to stand on the street corner and sing a song you heard on the radio. Same people who make it illegal for you to play your stereo loud in a public park or your place of work (without first obtaining a license to do so).
Same group of guys who sue 83 year old ladies, or 12 year old kids for allegedly sharing copyrighted materials.
http://www.scribd.com/funfan/d/45716...ts-of-All-Time
None of us can say for certain how they will and will not use these laws to their advantage. All we can say for certain is that everything seems "fair game" to them.Music piracy can get you in real trouble, but you have to be alive to do it.
2005,Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sued Gertrude Walton, who hadpassed away the year before at the age of 83, after having received notice of her death and a copy of the death certificate. The RIAA claimed that Watson had illegallydownloaded and shared over 700 songs. Watson’s daughter claims that she never even had a computer in the house. Although RIAA dropped the case against Watson,it was only one of over 20,000 similar lawsuits filed by the association beginning in2003. While some of the lawsuits are legitimate cases of piracy, defendants haveincluded a twelve-year-old girl whose parents wound up paying RIAA $2,000, andfamilies who have never owned a computer. Defendants can face charges of $150,000 per song
It has begun
There is a storm coming
Looking at the area he serves, you're surprised?
Basically his congressional area is at the core of the entertainment industry, which is behind both SOPA and PIPA.
No doubt they've invested dearly into lobbying Mr. Sherman.
In every case they had IP address logs that showed torrenting activity of copyrighted material on that person's ISP account going to their home. This is really not in dispute. Does this mean that exact person was operating the computer? Maybe they had an open wifi router. Maybe they had a malware bot on their machine. Maybe their kid or a visitor did it. IP address tracing is the best they can do at the user end of things. That's what lawsuits are for, to get to the truth of what happened.
So what you get from the pro-piracy anti-copyright crowd is not a straight up, "Sharing copyrighted content on the Internet is fine, and that's our position. Copyright laws are stupid and should be repealed. In the meantime we're going to pirate our asses off." No, because that's not a winning strategy. What you get instead is these kinds of horror stories. They try to paint the content owners as the bad guys when all they are trying to do is legally protect their legitimately copyrighted content which is being pirated on computers that were detected doing sharing of illegal content. (Not just downloading, sharing/uploading.) By doing this they try to undermine attempts to enforce copyright by painting them as "censorship", "breaking the Internet", blah blah blah. This is spin, hyperbole, conscious propaganda, whatever you want to call it. And you are falling for it.
None of this is supported by anything factual.So yeah, you call it insane, and that's exactly what it is. But you absolutely have your head in the sand if you think the proponents of this bill are rational and sane in their pursuit of profit. They aren't. They will lie cheat and exploit every single American citizen to line their pockets if given the opportunity.
What restrictions? That they are going to block access to illegal sites that they can't shut down because they are overseas? Is that a civil liberty, to commit illegal acts?Say it's hyperbole all you want. The RIAA/MPAA have already acted hyperbolic in the past, so they deserve that moniker. And this kind of law is tantamount to placing more restriction on the internet, which is an absolutely horrifying prospect, given the rate of erosion of civil liberties in this country over the past decade.
Well, for one thing, mr. sarcasm, I've actually read the bill. Have you? Or have you just listened to the spin? Did you actually look at the "blacked out" websites? I did. Google did not shut down their website, they just put up a link to their opposition statement. Wikipedia did not shut down their website, they just put up a javascript-generated "blackout" screen and then told you how to bypass it by setting a simple option in your browser. Reddit and others got a giant pile of free publicity for blacking out and probably made more in revenue because of it.By all means though, explain to us how you know more about SOPA than Google, or any of the other tech giants. Do you really think they're going to shut down their own websites for a day, tossing all that profit out the window, for something that isn't serious? Reddit is missing out on something like 50 million pageviews in the 12 hours they are dark. But oh, I forgot, again, you are coming from the position of superior knowledge here. Got it.
The serious part of SOPA for the Googles of the world is that it puts an additional procedural burden on websites that collect and organize user submitted content, and search engine websites. It's a bit more than DMCA already does. They don't want to do this. That's why they are against it. Don't be fooled.
If the government has the power to shut down megaupload, then what was the purpose of SOPA/PIPA? Seems like a big " you" from the government, flexing it's muscles...
This has been very interesting though... for those that weren't aware... this has been going on for a little while now.
-SOPA proposed with very little publicity
-internet finds out and is outraged that congress attempted to pass it before anyone really found out
-reddit vs godaddy
-blackouts
-megaupload shut down
-anonymous retaliates by shutting down DoJ site, among others
...
They should keep on suing, using their money, if they think that's the best course of action for their industry... No new law is required for them to keep on doing that.
Who determines what are "illegal sites"? Where does the law specifies that it only applies to overseas sites? Is the law constrained enough as to not inadvertently bring down legitimate sites if hosted in the same place as these "illegal sites"? You read the law, please point that out for me.
Actually, it's not just "procedural burden", it's flat out liability. The "making available" and "should have known" language makes anybody linking to any allegedly illegal content a potential target.
This was never about the bill. This was about SOPA acting as a gateway to allow for restriction of american internet. If these bills were really about allowing for some legality in shutting down sections of the internet, then why does the government shut down megaupload without notice, when the site technically abides by the same rules that youtube does?
Seriously, you're being a prick and an idiot. You say that some statements aren't supported by anything factual, when your entire statement of websites generating money from blacking out is complete assumption.
The purpose is to create the new criminal figure of "making available", which was not part of the current copyright act (the act grants exclusive public reproduction and distribution rights. Some legal cases argued that unless you prove that distribution took place, there was no infringement). Basically, it reduces the bar on evidence that the DOJ needs to present in order to charge somebody with criminal copyright infringement.
I see... thanks
failSOPA not gonna happen. these millionaires in their ivory towers are living in fantasy land.
once you wake up the wrath of the internet you are bound to get burned. just look at godaddy.com
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/29/bur...-opposes-sopa/
You're defending the RIAA. Sorry, you're obviously a shill and I have nothing to say to you. Trying to paint a corporation willing to sue someone for $60,000 per song+ in a favorable light? Yeah. You aren't worth conversing with, and nothing you say is going to have any impact on me because you're about as impartial as a Lakers fan in a debate concerning LeBron James.
BTW, I have read the bill. Just because you've read it as well does not suddenly mean you have the ability to grasp the consequences, as evidenced by the fact that you seem to think that corporations won't use any and all avenues to destroy people if it makes them a tiny bit of money or eliminates perceived compe ion. Sorry, but "they probably won't go that far" is the worst argument that I've ever heard and shows that you have your head in the sand, or up an interested party's ass.
They shut down megaupload without SOPA, but with SOPA they'll probably be SUPER RATIONAL AND CONSIDERATE OF WEBSITES' RIGHT TO EXIST!
Amazing how out of touch with reality some people are.
Sucks for the millions of people who just lost their legitimate files they backed up.They shut down megaupload without SOPA, but with SOPA they'll probably be SUPER RATIONAL AND CONSIDERATE OF WEBSITES' RIGHT TO EXIST!
Registration - 180+ million users
Unless you can offer some evidence that says 99.5% of them were illegal file sharers, the point is completely valid. With 180,000,000 people, it stands to reason that even an extremely conservative estimate of legitimate users would be 10,000,000 or more.
Cut. Print. That's a wrap.
Even if they need more laws to fight piracy, SOPA ain't it.
^There's other legislation making the rounds (ie:OPEN act) that addresses the need to fight piracy without going overboard and that includes support from a lot of the same people that oppose PIPA/SOPA...
Without draconian measures I don't see it as a fight. Piracy is going to exist until you offer something that the pirates can't. Why not make EVERY SINGLE tv show available online a week after it airs, replete with advertisements and the like? People can already TIVO shows, why not just offer up entire series on Netflix or through the host website like the Daily Show or South Park does? The media is being run by old people who still have no ability to understand how fast everything has changed in the past decade, and they refuse to adapt.
We already have a discussion going in the political forum. Feel free to bring this up there. I think this thread served it's purpose here.
I was surprised that Franken was for it until I realized that he probably gets residuals for SNL seasons 1-5.
Completely different animal from SOPA. The feds took their time to gather evidence and create a case.They shut down megaupload without SOPA, but with SOPA they'll probably be SUPER RATIONAL AND CONSIDERATE OF WEBSITES' RIGHT TO EXIST!
Amazing how out of touch with reality some people are.
With SOPA, all the feds would need is the slightest su ion and they would then be able to shut down a site. No probable cause, no evidence, just su ion of illegal activity.
[QUOTE=hemann82;5589693]Trolling: The only thing less original and more pathetic than volumes of cat photos.
I think the cats are funny. .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
