MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: cidepix on January 17, 2012, 16:10
-
am I the only one who thinks this is going to be great for us, stock illustrators and photographers (and all stock creators)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act)
and although wikipedia don't really like it for their own reasons http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout)
I believe if passed it will benefit us greatly in the long run..
-
Absolutely positively NOT. SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills. Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names. Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities. The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial. That does so much more harm than good.
-
Yeah, pretty much the entire interwebz is against it.
-
Absolutely positively NOT. SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills. Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names. Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities. The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial. That does so much more harm than good.
^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335)
Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?
-
Absolutely positively NOT. SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills. Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names. Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities. The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial. That does so much more harm than good.
^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335[/url])
Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?
Exactly my point.. I do believe this new thing is gonna be good for us.. Just imagine if similar bills are passed by all the governments in the world.. At least Europe should be expected to follow shortly, this will mean our content will not be available on pirate websites and will automatically translate to increased earnings.. am I missing something?
-
Sweden recognizes digital piracy religion: Kopimism ??? ;D
-
Absolutely positively NOT. SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills. Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names. Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities. The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial. That does so much more harm than good.
^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335[/url])
Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?
I did not see those words anywhere in her comment. You sound like "the Mushroom Cloud" administration.
-
Absolutely positively NOT. SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills. Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names. Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities. The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial. That does so much more harm than good.
^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335[/url])
Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?
Not at all. Of course I'm in favor of the intent and understand fully they are meant to take down illegitimate sites, but the bills as written are unacceptable. As a California resident, I'm very concerned about any unintended consequences to the tech industry in the Silicon Valley, as well as how infringing on copyrights affects the entertainment/media industry, and how one bad unintended consequence could negatively impact my state's economy. Tech and entertainment/media are two of the largest industries in California (and California has the 7th largest economy in the world).
Senator Patrick Leahy, one of the co-authors of PIPA (the senate version of SOPA), is now saying the bills need further study, because the effect on the tech industry wasn't considered when originally written. The bills were originally pushed by the entertainment industry.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398881,00.asp (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398881,00.asp)
Rep. Darrell Issa from California is pushing for an alternative that would offer a compromise between the two industries. I'm all for a compromise, because any anti-piracy legislation cannot be lopsided in favor of one industry over another.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/248240/opponent_says_sopa_may_be_stalled_in_congress.html (https://www.pcworld.com/article/248240/opponent_says_sopa_may_be_stalled_in_congress.html)
-
The bill is for taking down foreign websites not American ones.
-
Absolutely positively NOT. SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills. Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names. Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities. The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial. That does so much more harm than good.
^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335[/url])
Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?
Exactly my point.. I do believe this new thing is gonna be good for us.. Just imagine if similar bills are passed by all the governments in the world.. At least Europe should be expected to follow shortly, this will mean our content will not be available on pirate websites and will automatically translate to increased earnings.. am I missing something?
I think you are. As with all RULES ... the devil is in the details ... especially the ENFORCEMENT details.
-
And American companies can own foreign websites.
-
Absolutely positively NOT. SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills. Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names. Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities. The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial. That does so much more harm than good.
^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335[/url])
Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?
Exactly my point.. I do believe this new thing is gonna be good for us.. Just imagine if similar bills are passed by all the governments in the world.. At least Europe should be expected to follow shortly, this will mean our content will not be available on pirate websites and will automatically translate to increased earnings.. am I missing something?
I think you are. As with all RULES ... the devil is in the details ... especially the ENFORCEMENT details.
Exactly!
-
I would assume a website owned by an American company would be under US Jurisdiction and therefore not part of this bill, right?
-
I really don't know, Traveler. Would IS be in US jurisdiction as a Getty-owned company or Canadian jurisdiction as it states in our ASA? Just using them as an example.
Wikipedia makes a good point about websites using hosting services in other countries.
We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world’s knowledge. We’re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.
But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.
-
I must sound awfully ignorant, but how can the US take down foreign websites which fall under other jurisdictions...?
I dont quite get it :-\ Isnt that why Heroturko and consorts are still around, because they fall under Russian jurisdiction and Russia doesnt want to do anything about it?
-
Seems to me that the US government are the only people in the Western world doing anything at all to protect our intellectual property. The bill might need some tidying up but I think it's intentions are clear and, if they get it right, should be of great benefit to us. Piracy is good for criminals and bad for law-abiding citizens. It's just theft __ plain and simple.
-
I really don't know, Traveler. Would IS be in US jurisdiction as a Getty-owned company or Canadian jurisdiction as it states in our ASA? Just using them as an example.
I receive Gov Can T-5's from Istock so it is still Canadian, or one of it's entities is Canadian. I am pretty sure it would remain a Cdn business, maybe with a U.S. and International entity. Getty has no liability that way, they are just the managment company.
-
Seems to me that the US government are the only people in the Western world doing anything at all to protect our intellectual property. The bill might need some tidying up but I think it's intentions are clear and, if they get it right, should be of great benefit to us. Piracy is good for criminals and bad for law-abiding citizens. It's just theft __ plain and simple.
Agreed. All I want is for Congress to get it right, so it can stand as a great example for the rest of the world.
-
I must sound awfully ignorant, but how can the US take down foreign websites which fall under other jurisdictions...?
I dont quite get it :-\ Isnt that why Heroturko and consorts are still around, because they fall under Russian jurisdiction and Russia doesnt want to do anything about it?
The websites would still exist, but would be totally inaccessible from the US.
-
I really don't know, Traveler. Would IS be in US jurisdiction as a Getty-owned company or Canadian jurisdiction as it states in our ASA? Just using them as an example.
Wikipedia makes a good point about websites using hosting services in other countries.
We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world’s knowledge. We’re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.
But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.
You do make good points.. There are negative aspects.. But I "really" don't see how it is bad for us, content owners, copyright holders! I understand why it is bad for youtube, wikipedia or wordpress etc.
But for us, original content creators, this sounds like a beautiful thing.. as gostwyck stated, if done properly this will benefit us a lot!
I am not saying it is great for global internet companies who rely on content published by regular internet users.. That is another discussion topic..
-
Seems to me that the US government are the only people in the Western world doing anything at all to protect our intellectual property. The bill might need some tidying up but I think it's intentions are clear and, if they get it right, should be of great benefit to us. Piracy is good for criminals and bad for law-abiding citizens. It's just theft __ plain and simple.
Agreed. All I want is for Congress to get it right, so it can stand as a great example for the rest of the world.
Now, I agree with this!
-
I'm all for protecting our IP, but as stated above, there is a huge potential for misunderstandings and misuse the way the law is written now. I also wonder what effect it would have on a hosting company if sites hosted there were blacklisted...
That could be a giant problem for web developers like me!
I would like to see something like this in place, but it would have to have much more thought put into it first.
-
.
-
but it would have to have much more thought put into it first.
I agree,
but even if it does pass as it is right now, It is still good for us.. Because we are similar to motion picture industry as we rely on copyright, to get paid..
-
Absolutely positively NOT. SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills. Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names. Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities. The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial. That does so much more harm than good.
^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335[/url])
Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?
Exactly my point.. I do believe this new thing is gonna be good for us.. Just imagine if similar bills are passed by all the governments in the world.. At least Europe should be expected to follow shortly, this will mean our content will not be available on pirate websites and will automatically translate to increased earnings.. am I missing something?
OMG!!! This is so unbelievable stupid short sigthened! OPEN YOUR EYES DUDE!!!
-
OMG!!! This is so unbelievable stupid short sigthened! OPEN YOUR EYES DUDE!!!
;)
I totally understand your concerns.. and I hope it is given further thought before it is passed.. But eventually, after it is perfected, it should be passed.. because better protection of copyright is needed..
-
Just read the thing and i'm very contra; its just too much focussed on censoring and has too many disadvantages to outweigh the benefits.
What strikes me is that once again the illegal downloaders themselves remain out of target. (unless i missed something). If they would actually start pursueing the ones who download illegal/copyrighted content i think the results would be far better. The chance of getting caught AND sue'ed/fined would probably have more effective disencouraging effects, rather than making it a game to get to the barred website (through online proxies, alternative domain names, direct IP access etc). And pirate sites without 'clients' do download have little reason to stay online.
-
This is interesting but probably academic. At the last minute, the Obama administration has announced opposition to the bill. Apparently he intends to veto it. I doubt if there is enough support in Congress to overcome his veto. So that's the end of that.
-
It's a bill written by lobbyists, pushed by industry money, and will be voted on by people who don't understand the issues or the technology. So it's unlikely to be good law.
-
Most of the opponents of this bill, especially on the "interwebz" ( how hipster!) seem to feel that the free and open internet is some sort of sacred right. The reality, however, has become a cavalier attitude towards ownership of intellectual property that is a threat to all of us. Maybe this isn't the best bill that can be crafted, but you have to make a start. I doubt that it would spell "the end of the internet" to quote a particularly hateful commentator on TWIT, but if it takes stolen content to keep the internet alive, then let it die. Or pay up. If my interests happen to coincide with the lobbyists, that's fine with me.
-
I obviously have a big stake in the reasonable protections for copyright holders so our work isn't pirated.
However, SOPA and the Senate parallel are terrible legislation and should not be passed. The problem is that there's a requirement to take down on the basis of an allegation - think of how that allows malicious takedown - and that an industry group gets to administer it (the worst kind of privatizing government, IMO).
Just because there is clearly a piracy problem does not make every piece of legislation advisable.
-
I obviously have a big stake in the reasonable protections for copyright holders so our work isn't pirated.
However, SOPA and the Senate parallel are terrible legislation and should not be passed. The problem is that there's a requirement to take down on the basis of an allegation - think of how that allows malicious takedown - and that an industry group gets to administer it (the worst kind of privatizing government, IMO).
Just because there is clearly a piracy problem does not make every piece of legislation advisable.
+1
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGEUhCfQ464[/youtube]
-
Interesting to see what Wikipedia thinks of this
Imagine a World
Without Free Knowledge
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia.
I'm all for reducing copyright infringement but I think it's too late to do it in a draconian way. I like the idea of people paying more for their internet connection and that money being collected and distributed to people that have had copyright infringements against them.
Instead of trying to police the internet, an impossible and expensive task, I think the politicians need to find a way to make people using illegal material pay more and give the money to the copyright holders.
If the internet was shut down completely, people would still buy pirated DVD's and CD's. There has to be a better solution.
-
I like the idea of people paying more for their internet connection and that money being collected and distributed to people that have had copyright infringements against them.
Instead of trying to police the internet, an impossible and expensive task, I think the politicians need to find a way to make people using illegal material pay more and give the money to the copyright holders.
... so the innocent law-abiding majority should effectively be taxed for the misdemeanors of the guilty?
Why don't you suggest it for where you live? Your local police should no longer pursue muggers and burlgars and your neighbours get burdened with extra taxes to pay for the losses. They'll love that idea.
-
The local police gave up pursuing muggers and burglars years ago and taxes have still gone up :)
Innocent law abiding majority? You're from the UK aren't you? I think it's a minority that have never infringed copyright in this country. It's gone on for years, long before the internet became popular. The innocent already pay more because everything they buy is more expensive than it would be if there wasn't any copyright abuse. In an ideal world, the copyright abuse could be stopped but I don't think it's possible in the real world. So the only sensible solution I can think of is to pay people that have had their copyright abused.
-
Mmmm, very good quote......
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-
There was a TED talk posted today. 13 mins though:
http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html)
-
Yeah, pretty much the entire interwebz is against it.
Te entire internet? I've been surfing al the day and I've not found any closed-protesting pages. I read that about 10.000 pages have closed in protest ... 10.000? there are bilions of pages and blogs in the internet...
The most famous protester seems to be Wikipedia. Maybe they wish to impose their model? One model where contributors get nothing, while wikipedia ask constantly for money to users... and this money goes to wikipedia, but never goes to contributors: content is free and must be done for free. Talk about giving ideas to microstock business. And maybe Wikipedia is an "org", but for what I'v seen and read, Jimmy Wales seems to be a very rich man.
-
www.wordpress.com (http://www.wordpress.com) is the only one I've come across, click a censored button and it leads to a protest page.
-
Reddit is another one. And Google, in a show of support, has blacked out its logo.
-
Looks like most of the sites which threatened a real blackout have backed down.
What legislation emerges, if any, will depend on one issue: Who can bribe the most politicians: Google et al or Hollywood and the music labels?
-
There was a TED talk posted today. 13 mins though:
[url]http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html[/url] ([url]http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html[/url])
Thanks for that link, well worth 13 minutes of my time and I would have missed it if you hadn't posted. I do agree with Clay Shirky (speaker) the way to deal with copyright violation is by trial with a presentation of evidence and the hashing out of facts.
-
have you ever listened to a copied mixtape in your walkman in the 80s/90s?
-
... craigslist.org is blacked out too.
-
There was a TED talk posted today. 13 mins though:
[url]http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html[/url] ([url]http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html[/url])
Thanks for that link, well worth 13 minutes of my time and I would have missed it if you hadn't posted. I do agree with Clay Shirky (speaker) the way to deal with copyright violation is by trial with a presentation of evidence and the hashing out of facts.
It is for foreign companies. Do we take these Russian or Chinese companies to trial in the US or do we fly there to file for a trial?
-
... craigslist.org is blacked out too.
theoatmeal.com
archive.org (for 12 hours)
twitpic.com/sopapipa has a "censored" logo
minecraft.net
icanhascheezburger.com and its network
-
I can't imagine a worse idea than lawmakers getting involved in any internet protection scheme. Next step is probably taxing internet traffic to "pay" for the huge bureaucracy necessary to enforce whatever transgressions are imagined by politicians.
Leave it wild and wooly. I'd rather gargle razor blades than see nanny-state protectionists involved.
-
I can't imagine a worse idea than lawmakers getting involved in any internet protection scheme. Next step is probably taxing internet traffic to "pay" for the huge bureaucracy necessary to enforce whatever transgressions are imagined by politicians.
Leave it wild and wooly. I'd rather gargle razor blades than see nanny-state protectionists involved.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16391727 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16391727) Looks like Spain did it.
-
have you ever listened to a copied mixtape in your walkman in the 80s/90s?
Me? Of course I did. The stated purpose of the bill is to take out pirate sites which I think we all agree with if the legislation could be formed in a way that wouldn't break the Internet. The bill hasn't had a lot of main stream coverage in the UK - 10 minutes on Newsnight last night but it's clear that the wider ramifications could or would be stretched to become commercial weapons if this incarnation of a previously rejected bill gets through. Recommend watching the clip.
-
There was a TED talk posted today. 13 mins though:
[url]http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html[/url] ([url]http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html[/url])
Thanks for that link, well worth 13 minutes of my time and I would have missed it if you hadn't posted. I do agree with Clay Shirky (speaker) the way to deal with copyright violation is by trial with a presentation of evidence and the hashing out of facts.
It is for foreign companies. Do we take these Russian or Chinese companies to trial in the US or do we fly there to file for a trial?
The UK are extraditing an English student, accused of copyright infringement to face prosecution in the US based on an anti terrorism extradition law that has been stretched beyond reason. I can't answer your question but surely something less wide ranging and open to abuse by governments prone to wealthly lobbyists would be better.
-
My son is having major Minecraft withdrawal because of this "stupid SOPA" crap. Tomorrow will be a happy day in the 10 year old crowd.
-
What's good for wikipedia, is clearly not good for me!
I am a creative person.. I produce %100 original vector art that is being stolen and used illegally over and over again.. Sure, I can make complaints and have pirates take down stolen content if I notice it..
But there must be many that go unnoticed..
I am sorry but as a designer and illustrator I am with movie and music industries and everyone who backs this law, and I don't believe wikipedia's best interests are good for me personally.. Just because majority is going to enjoy stolen content and abuse my copyright (under the disguise of freedom of speech supposedly) I don't want to put up with piracy..
this video is crap http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html)
who says sharing should be free? and why should it be free? Is it free to create content? Do we, designers and photographers not pay for things? Well, I am sorry but internet is too wild and it is wrong..
I think of the internet today, like the "wild west" which will eventually reach to a point where legality is normal..
-
Totally for it. It will (hopefully) change the internet. But I see that as a good thing. Website owners will have to start taking responsibility for the content they put out there (or allow their users to put out there).
All the stuff about legit websites getting shut down is just scare mongering by people who love to get stuff for free, or make money off others getting stuff for free.
It's the usual pitiful arguments about freedom of speech which really don't hold any water as soon as you start looking into them.
"We'll be shutting down sites just like they do in China" etc. Well we don't say "We'll be locking up people just like they do in China" because the difference is in the context.
"We'll be infringing on people's freedom of speech just like they do in x, y and z" Well I worry more about not protecting artists work which is a direct violation of their human rights and if your a US citizen also against the constitution.
People need to get a grip and be a bit more honest about their motivation, as consumers in a market place it is their role to try and get things as cheaply as possible. No problem there, it's just that the internet has made the lowest price free. It's high time the balance started to be redressed somewhat by producers.
And of course the majority of users will be against it, most of them are on the consumer side of the equation.
-
^^^ Very well put! Agree 100%.
-
...All the stuff about legit websites getting shut down is just scare mongering by people who love to get stuff for free, or make money off others getting stuff for free.
I play a bit of online poker and I remember people didn't think the US government would ban people in the US playing online poker. It seemed crazy when they can walk in to a casino and play. It did happen though, so I don't see the threat of legit sites being shut down for minor misdemeanors as being scare mongering.
I'm all for shutting down the sites that only share pirated media but they could easily go too far, like they have with online poker. Never underestimate how corrupt and stupid politicians can be.
-
One more thing to add.. I always found the attitude of sites like youtube mind boggling.. They don't take enough responsibility..
If shutterstock can check every single upload, so can youtube! If the reviewer is well informed about copyright infringing material it will take a second to press "refuse" button..
If you can find movies like "pirates of the caribbean on stranger tides" on youtube in full and for free, I am sorry but youtube has to think the way they operate through! That is not freedom of speech and expression.. That is copyright infringement and youtube has enough money to have reviewers to at least stop people uploading full length hollywood movies..
And once people get the idea, (after a while) they will not even bother uploading a 2 hour full length movie because they will know it will be refused and it is not worth their time to keep being internet pirates!
If you don't do anything to stop it.. They will continue uploading blockbusters with ease and your job of protecting the copyright is going to be even more difficult..
-
I play a bit of online poker and I remember people didn't think the US government would ban people in the US playing online poker. It seemed crazy when they can walk in to a casino and play. It did happen though, so I don't see the threat of legit sites being shut down for minor misdemeanors as being scare mongering.
I'm all for shutting down the sites that only share pirated media but they could easily go too far, like they have with online poker. Never underestimate how corrupt and stupid politicians can be.
It wasn't the law used to ban it that was to blame for that, if anything it was due to a lack of legislation. The States were just scared that the Federal government could use the the 1961 Wire act against them. A law that actually had nothing to do with the internet at all!
There's finally been a proper ruling now so the states should be free enact online gambling now/ soon.
-
Here's an example of the problem with the current reactive state of play:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/envato-and-copyright/msg238908/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/envato-and-copyright/msg238908/?topicseen#new)
A site that knows that there are violations going on all over the place, but they know that the DMCA covers them till a complaint is made.
They are within the letter of the law but are basically using the law as a loophole rather than having any interest in the spirit of the law or taking any sort of care about the stuff posted on their site.
And that is a site many of us actually trust with our work!
That's the kind of cr*p I hope legislation will sort out.
-
Here's an example of the problem with the current reactive state of play:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/envato-and-copyright/msg238908/?topicseen#new[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/envato-and-copyright/msg238908/?topicseen#new[/url])
A site that knows that there are violations going on all over the place, but they know that the DMCA covers them till a complaint is made.
They are within the letter of the law but are basically using the law as a loophole rather than having any interest in the spirit of the law or taking any sort of care about the stuff posted on their site.
And that is a site many of us actually trust with our work!
That's the kind of cr*p I hope legislation will sort out.
Envato is not within the letter of the law on this one, at least not here in the US. For an Online Service Provider, like YouTube, to be protected from copyright violations, they must be a registered OSP with the US Copyright Office. They are not registered.
http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/e_agents.html (http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/e_agents.html)
-
Oh wow, I thought they were okay until they received a DMCA from as long as they could say "It wasn't us gov, it's our users"
Interesting.......
-
Oh wow, I thought they were okay until they received a DMCA from as long as they could say "It wasn't us gov, it's our users"
Interesting.......
Assuming a DMCA take-down notice in the terms of service protects an OSP from copyright violations is a mistake numerous websites make.
-
Errrr. Just wrote to my representative a long thoughtful email on why I support SOPA and PIPA and the response was: "Thanks for your email in opposition of SOPA" and that's it. Thanks "representative".
-
Your representative must have been one of the brainiacs on the IP Committee. Check out this clip from last night's Jon Stewart to see what I mean. ;D
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-18-2012/ko-computer (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-18-2012/ko-computer)
-
Not really sure, but leaning towards the protesting crowd. I've seen too many rules like this hitting the honest users or the ones violating it by mistake while the real abusers remain unaffected.
As far as I can say, these acts are - at the current revision - very vague which only strengthens my doubts.
-
Not really sure, but leaning towards the protesting crowd. I've seen too many rules like this hitting the honest users or the ones violating it by mistake while the real abusers remain unaffected.
As far as I can say, these acts are - at the current revision - very vague which only strengthens my doubts.
Which rules have hit honest users? Just interested to know.
-
Not really sure, but leaning towards the protesting crowd. I've seen too many rules like this hitting the honest users or the ones violating it by mistake while the real abusers remain unaffected.
As far as I can say, these acts are - at the current revision - very vague which only strengthens my doubts.
Which rules have hit honest users? Just interested to know.
Let me give you two examples. Both are obviously different in many aspects...
1. CD/DVD/Software copyright protection. As far as I know it did not reduce volume of illegal copies that much (if at all). It however prevented me personally from playing a CD in my car's CD player and it prevented me from playing a DVD on my Linux based laptop (just because they were somehow not compatible with that particular disk protection) - both were bought legal copies. It forced my brother (who plays computer games) to look for a "crack" for his legally obtained computer game to get the thing run on his computer. And it is well known that this happens regularly to people around the world.
2. In my country there was - for certain period of time - rather strict legislation in the area of drug abuse. The laws said that anyone can be sentenced to prison for holding "drug quantity greater than small" (it was this vague). It lead to several sentences for marihuana smokers as well as other people that certainly did not participate in drugs business. It was changed after several years because statistics proved it did not improve situation at all and did not hit the actual drug business at all.
-
What's good for wikipedia, is clearly not good for me!
I am a creative person.. I produce %100 original vector art that is being stolen and used illegally over and over again.. Sure, I can make complaints and have pirates take down stolen content if I notice it..
But there must be many that go unnoticed..
I am sorry but as a designer and illustrator I am with movie and music industries and everyone who backs this law, and I don't believe wikipedia's best interests are good for me personally.. Just because majority is going to enjoy stolen content and abuse my copyright (under the disguise of freedom of speech supposedly) I don't want to put up with piracy..
this video is crap [url]http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html[/url] ([url]http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html[/url])
who says sharing should be free? and why should it be free? Is it free to create content? Do we, designers and photographers not pay for things? Well, I am sorry but internet is too wild and it is wrong..
I think of the internet today, like the "wild west" which will eventually reach to a point where legality is normal..
Do you think this bill will stop people from lifting your illustrations?
-
I must sound awfully ignorant, but how can the US take down foreign websites which fall under other jurisdictions...?
I dont quite get it :-\ Isnt that why Heroturko and consorts are still around, because they fall under Russian jurisdiction and Russia doesnt want to do anything about it?
A friend told me that 11 out of 13 DNS servers is in the states and if they shut them down, virtually all web traffic is down
-
Do you think this bill will stop people from lifting your illustrations?
Stop! maybe not..
make it difficult? Yes!
-
It has started. Megaupload got shutdown today... for your reading...
http://techland.time.com/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-megaupload-com-file-sharing-website/?iid=ent-main-mostpop2 (http://techland.time.com/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-megaupload-com-file-sharing-website/?iid=ent-main-mostpop2)
-
It has started. Megaupload got shutdown today... for your reading...
[url]http://techland.time.com/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-megaupload-com-file-sharing-website/?iid=ent-main-mostpop2[/url] ([url]http://techland.time.com/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-megaupload-com-file-sharing-website/?iid=ent-main-mostpop2[/url])
Can't tell you how many times this week my face has looked just that kid's. Priceless! :D
-
Do you think this bill will stop people from lifting your illustrations?
Stop! maybe not..
make it difficult? Yes!
Why would it make it any more difficult than it already is?
-
Just a thought...
Denying copyright owners access to these sites causes the unintended consequence of us not being able to effectively monitor infringements on our work. How can we bring charges against these companies or send them DMCA notices, if we can't even see they are infringing on our property rights in the first place? That's an issue that should be addressed in the legislation.
-
Apparently the bill is dead and i cant say i regret it ::)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57362990-501465/sopa-is-dead-smith-pulls-bill/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57362990-501465/sopa-is-dead-smith-pulls-bill/)
-
Apparently the bill is dead and i cant say i regret it ::)
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57362990-501465/sopa-is-dead-smith-pulls-bill/[/url] ([url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57362990-501465/sopa-is-dead-smith-pulls-bill/[/url])
THIS is good news. It always baffles me how naive people can sometimes be :o
-
Apparently the bill is dead and i cant say i regret it ::)
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57362990-501465/sopa-is-dead-smith-pulls-bill/[/url] ([url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57362990-501465/sopa-is-dead-smith-pulls-bill/[/url])
THIS is good news. It always baffles me how naive people can sometimes be :o
Well that's true....
-
Hopefully they will now think about this problem sensibly and come up with a solution that will work. I'm not optimistic though, politicians are only interested in getting re-elected and will do whatever it takes to be popular in the short term. This needs a well thought out long term solution. The UK digital economy bill was rushed through with only 2 hours of debate just before the 2010 election. Such a shame that something that could be crucial to the economy of this country was handled so badly.
-
Hopefully they will now think about this problem sensibly and come up with a solution that will work. I'm not optimistic though, politicians are only interested in getting re-elected and will do whatever it takes to be popular in the short term. This needs a well thought out long term solution. The UK digital economy bill was rushed through with only 2 hours of debate just before the 2010 election. Such a shame that something that could be crucial to the economy of this country was handled so badly.
Yup, triumph of mob rule
ETA, although reading this (and looking through the spin) it doesn't seem like there was as much opposition as I would have expected given all the "internet is up in arms" hype
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57361906-501465/sopa-and-pipa-internet-blackout-aftermath-staggering-numbers/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57361906-501465/sopa-and-pipa-internet-blackout-aftermath-staggering-numbers/)
"12,000 people posted comments on Wikimedia Foundation's blog post announcing the blackout."
"Google confirmed that 4.5 million people signed the company's petition to protest SOPA and PIPA"
"350,000 emails were sent to representatives via SopaStrike.com and AmericanCensorship.org."
"According to the White House, a combined 103,785 signed a petition to kill the bill"
Compare these figures to the total number of US internet users (or even worldwide in the case of Google comments and Wiki etc.) and it seems it really is a vocal minority that are "up in arms". Oh yeah, plus all those websites that love having zero culpability for what people do in their house.
-
"The Day the LOLCats Died"...fabulousness!!! ;D
The Day The LOLcats Died - #SOPA #PIPA Protest Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p-TV4jaCMk#ws)
-
The problem is the bills were way too strong and had potential for abuse. You need checks and balances. It has nothing to do with "free speech", Privacy or Censorship.. Those are the usual shouts thrown out to scare people. As misguided as the bills were, they were at least a way to make people aware that there are problems.
On the other hand, we need something to protect our interests, even if the main beneficiary will be the music and film/video industry, maybe software producers. Hey maybe that vocal minority doesn't want to lose their free downloads and pirated movies? ;) DMCA does nothing.
Personally, most of the people who download a song or a movie, that I know, would never buy it in the first place. The amusement is looking or listening to see what it's about and it gets deleted. Not like someone who steals our little bit of income and profit and re-sells it for their personal profit. And because we aren't some big corporation with legal services looking out for our interest, we'll be fighting on our own if some bill is eventually passed.
I think the question is, if there was some way to shut down one of those file sharing sites that redistributes our images, would people go to a pay agency or just do without them? It isn't like cleaning house will produce huge gains in sales or income for us... OR the big industrial communications and entertainment companies.