Author Topic: Great News (!) (Read 19386 times)

cidepix · « **Reply #25 on:** January 17, 2012, 19:22 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on January 17, 2012, 19:13

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..

Artemis · « **Reply #26 on:** January 17, 2012, 19:43 »

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.

michaeldb · « **Reply #27 on:** January 17, 2012, 20:11 »

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.

stockastic · « **Reply #28 on:** January 17, 2012, 20:45 »

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.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 17, 2012, 20:52 »

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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #30 on:** January 17, 2012, 20:58 »

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.

Karimala · « **Reply #31 on:** January 17, 2012, 20:59 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 17, 2012, 20:58

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

Blammo · « **Reply #32 on:** January 18, 2012, 08:59 »

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGEUhCfQ464[/youtube]

sharpshot · « **Reply #33 on:** January 18, 2012, 09:14 »

Interesting to see what Wikipedia thinks of this

Quote

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #34 on:** January 18, 2012, 09:23 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 18, 2012, 09:14

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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #35 on:** January 18, 2012, 10:16 »

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.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #36 on:** January 18, 2012, 13:45 »

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.

Pixart · « **Reply #37 on:** January 18, 2012, 14:26 »

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

loop · « **Reply #38 on:** January 18, 2012, 14:28 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 17, 2012, 16:21

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.

Pixart · « **Reply #39 on:** January 18, 2012, 14:47 »

www.wordpress.com is the only one I've come across, click a censored button and it leads to a protest page.

Karimala · « **Reply #40 on:** January 18, 2012, 15:08 »

Reddit is another one. And Google, in a show of support, has blacked out its logo.

michaeldb · « **Reply #41 on:** January 18, 2012, 16:53 »

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?

S. · « **Reply #43 on:** January 18, 2012, 17:21 »

have you ever listened to a copied mixtape in your walkman in the 80s/90s?

asiseeit · « **Reply #44 on:** January 18, 2012, 17:25 »

... craigslist.org is blacked out too.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #45 on:** January 18, 2012, 17:34 »

Quote from: halfshag on January 18, 2012, 17:01

Quote from: Pixart on January 18, 2012, 14:26
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

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?

S. · « **Reply #46 on:** January 18, 2012, 17:35 »

Quote from: asiseeit on January 18, 2012, 17:25

... 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

louoates · « **Reply #47 on:** January 18, 2012, 17:37 »

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.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #48 on:** January 18, 2012, 17:42 »

Quote from: louoates on January 18, 2012, 17:37

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 Looks like Spain did it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Great News (!) (Read 19386 times)

cidepix

Artemis

michaeldb

stockastic

jbarber873

Jo Ann Snover

Karimala

Blammo

sharpshot

gostwyck

sharpshot

velocicarpo

Pixart

loop

Pixart

Karimala

michaeldb

halfshag

S.

asiseeit

traveler1116

S.

louoates

traveler1116

halfshag

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors