Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Internet, we hardly knew ye.

Nov 16, 2011#1

GasBandit

This Is Important, You Should Know About It of the Day: The despicable Internet Blacklist Bill — known as the “PROTECT IP Act” or S. 968 in the Senate and the “Stop Online Piracy Act” or H.R. 3261 in the House — has been discussed on TDW in the past, but crunch-time is upon us as Congress officially began holding hearings today on the most harmful Internet censorship legislation of our time.

An informative video on the bill’s many ills has been posted above, but, in brief, the legislation, if passed, would essentially hand the Internet over to corporations, allowing them to sue and shut down any website that so much as hosts a link to copyrighted material.

Internet Service Providers could be forced to block social media sites, search engines could be required to delete results, and startups could lose their funding — all on the whim of the copyright holder.

Perhaps most distressing of all, however, is the fact that this bill, in true Orwellian fashion, does nothing to prevent actual piracy. The only thing it will succeed in doing is turning the Internet into a dystopic plutocracy where people are no longer free to share ideas and be creative for fear of running afoul of Big Business.

Despite what some would have you believe, the hearings are offensively lopsided, with pro-SOPA voices far outweighing those opposed. A slew of tech companies including Google, Yahoo!, Mozilla, Twitter, and AOL, have undersigned a full-page ad in today’s New York Times opposing SOPA, but it’s doubtful their voices will be heard by those who need to hear it.

That means it’s up to you to get this terrifying, jobs-killing, Internet-breaking bill off the table for good. Here are a few things you can do:

– Reach out to your representatives in congress. Despite what they might think, they work for you. Remind them of that by e-mailing them this form letter (good), or look them up and write them a personal, heartfelt letter (even better).

– Sign this petition, and also this one.

– Share this post and/or the video above.

– Get the word out any way you can, because, soon, you may no longer be allowed to.

Nov 16, 2011#2

Zappit

Goddamn.

Nov 16, 2011#3

GasBandit

Added at: 16:07
Forgot we can just copypasta vimeo now.

Nov 16, 2011#4

Krisken

Well crap. It was nice while it lasted.

Nov 16, 2011#5

Jay

The fuck is this? Why are old men deciding the future of the younger generation? Those old men with other people hands in their pockets?

Nov 16, 2011#6

Hailey Knight

Spread the word. Make it a problem.

Nov 16, 2011#7

Shegokigo

You think Occupy Wallstreet was bad?

For all the "little" that Anon gets done, I can tell you the fallout would be immense if this ever saw light.

Nov 16, 2011#8

SpecialKO

Our future will apparently be full of licensing fees for everything and darknets for everything.

Nov 16, 2011#9

Hailey Knight

Shegokigo said:
You think Occupy Wallstreet was bad?

For all the "little" that Anon gets done, I can tell you the fallout would be immense if this ever saw light.

Wow, that's almost exactly what my wife said.

And you're both probably right.

Nov 17, 2011#10

GasBandit

Nov 17, 2011#11

Necronic

I for one would just like to thank all the asshats out there who spent the last decade pirating stuff.

I'm not just blaming them, but it's hard to blame the politicians for acting in a knee jerk and self-destructive way. That's like blaming a bear for being dangerous. I prefer to blame the people who continued to poke the bear until it broke out of the cage and killed the family of four that were picknicking nearby.

But I will be contacting my congressment about this.

Nov 17, 2011#12

GasBandit

Necronic said:
I for one would just like to thank all the asshats out there who spent the last decade pirating stuff.

I'm not just blaming them, but it's hard to blame the politicians for acting in a knee jerk and self-destructive way. That's like blaming a bear for being dangerous. I prefer to blame the people who continued to poke the bear until it broke out of the cage and killed the family of four that were picknicking nearby.

But I will be contacting my congressment about this.

No matter how much crime there is, there is never enough to justify going Demolition Man. Frankly, what you just said is basically tantamount to "I just want to thank all the people who went 8mph over the speed limit as a habit" if congress were to demolish random sections of all the interstates in the name of improving driving statistics.

Nov 17, 2011#13

Dave

The biggest problem is that the politicians don't have the knowledge necessary to make the call on this sort of thing and are getting their information from industry "experts" who are terribly skewed in favor of the mega-corporations - who are very, very smart and make this more about "stopping crime" than what it's really about, which is making more and more money while exerting their total control over what we consume for media.

Politicians are incredibly short-sighted when it comes to technology and this frequently leads to the law of unintended consequences.

Nov 17, 2011#14

sixpackshaker

Maybe more like the police arming the Automatic Radar Display Trailers with .50 caliber machine guns.

Nov 17, 2011#15

Dave

Attention, citizen! You have been clocked at 1 mile per hour over the posted speed limit. You have 5 seconds to comply. 4...3...2...1. I am now authorized to use physical force.

Nov 17, 2011#16

Chibibar

Dave said:
The biggest problem is that the politicians don't have the knowledge necessary to make the call on this sort of thing and are getting their information from industry "experts" who are terribly skewed in favor of the mega-corporations - who are very, very smart and make this more about "stopping crime" than what it's really about, which is making more and more money while exerting their total control over what we consume for media.

Politicians are incredibly short-sighted when it comes to technology and this frequently leads to the law of unintended consequences.

totally agree. But even with corporation lobbying, in the long run, it may end up hurting them too and probably fragment ISP as we know it (or go under one monopoly)
It is funny. This system is basically would kill the market that the internet have today.

Nov 17, 2011#17

Dei

GasBandit said:
No matter how much crime there is, there is never enough to justify going Demolition Man.

If they ever fine people every time they swear, I will be living on the streets, or jail for inability to pay fines.

Nov 17, 2011#18

LordRendar

I am glad we that we got a political party in government whos biggest goal is to keep our internet free.
I hope your politicians will soon see the light.
What is the average age for your politicians? From what I see in TV most of them seem to be Dave-ageish.

Nov 17, 2011#19

Necronic

GasBandit said:
No matter how much crime there is, there is never enough to justify going Demolition Man. Frankly, what you just said is basically tantamount to "I just want to thank all the people who went 8mph over the speed limit as a habit" if congress were to demolish random sections of all the interstates in the name of improving driving statistics.

I think there are two sides of the coin here. Definitely it is true that politicians are being led by the nose, quite idiotically, by corporate lobbyists, and the fact that google/yahoo/etc are being cut out is attrocious. The legislation that is coming is poorly thought out and truly dangerous.

But on the other hand, too many people have been making it too clear for too long that the current state of affairs is untennable. When a population refuses to do the right thing on its own it is effectively inviting governance. It is no different than corporate regulations. If you can show that you will do the right thing without us making you, then we'll let you do as you please. We, and by we I guess I mean the internet generation, have thoroughly failed that test.

We may not have wanted intervention, but you can't say that we weren't asking for it.

Nov 17, 2011#20

Dave

LordRendar said:
From what I see in TV most of them seem to be Dave-ageish.

Average age of House of Representatives: 55.9 years old
Average age of Senate: 61.7 years old
Dave's Age: 46 years old

Nov 17, 2011#21

GasBandit

Necronic said:
I think there are two sides of the coin here. Definitely it is true that politicians are being led by the nose, quite idiotically, by corporate lobbyists, and the fact that google/yahoo/etc are being cut out is attrocious. The legislation that is coming is poorly thought out and truly dangerous.

But on the other hand, too many people have been making it too clear for too long that the current state of affairs is untennable. When a population refuses to do the right thing on its own it is effectively inviting governance. It is no different than corporate regulations. If you can show that you will do the right thing without us making you, then we'll let you do as you please. We, and by we I guess I mean the internet generation, have thoroughly failed that test.

We may not have wanted intervention, but you can't say that we weren't asking for it.

We might be veering too far into philosophy here, but if an entire population refuses to do the "lawful" thing, does that mean that the law is in the wrong?

Nov 17, 2011#22

Necronic

It's a facile question because there is no such thing as a consensus in a population this large. There will be dissenters. So does the argument become solved by argumentum ad populum?

No. Delving even further into the philosophy, I don't believe in moral relativism, at least, not in the sense that morals can change without a massive change in environment (like, if we were living in the 40k universe you really couldn't operate under our system of morals. Because, you know, death to the heretic and all that.)

But really it doesn't have to be a deep philisophical debate, or, at least it can be one with very solid grounds: The Federalist Papers. One of the key arguments of the Federalist Papers (specifically Fed 51), is that man is incapable of governing themselves, and that gives the government moral justification for removing some freedoms to protect others. In many places we all agree with this, like murder. In others, though, we don't, like in the "take a penny/leave a penny" trays.

It is SUCH a fundamental question though. Look at the OWS protests. Them getting raided/shut down boils down to this same issue. As long as these guys weren't creating a hazardous environment for themeslves and others the local government let it pass. But when they showed themselves incapable of policing themselves they shut it down very quickly.

When we are capable of governing ourselves we are more able to justify the preservation of our freedoms and the absence of governance. Otherwise we get intervention.

So, I guess my point is that you can't complain about the intervention itself. That was guaranteed thanks to a generation of asshats who think that they have a right to anything they can get their hands on. But, that said, I guess it is perfectly acceptable to complain and criticize the nature of the intervention.

And, like I said, I completely agree that the nature of the intervention is extreme. I'm just pissed at the people that necessitated an intervention in the first place. That is truly the foundation of the current problem. Without the intervention we would not be concerned about it's nature.

Edit: Actually....after thinking about it.....if the intervention were not so extreme I probably wouldn't care. So, maybe the nature of the intervention is the key issue for me.

Nov 17, 2011#23

LordRendar

Dave said:
Average age of House of Representatives: 55.9 years old
Average age of Senate: 61.7 years old
Dave's Age: 46 years old

I jest,I jest.
But seriously,a bunch of old coots who know nothing bout the internet other then that it is a bunch of tubes deciding on the fate of the internet?
Yeah...that is gonna end well.

Nov 17, 2011#24

GasBandit

I can respect your bringing in the Federalist Papers here, and since we're going old school, I'd also like to bring in a founding principle - the name of the 12th century judge who first said it escapes me, but the principle of "better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent is convicted unjustly" was part of the very identity of the nation as conceived by the founders - they themselves having suffered tyranny from a distant monarch, wanted the burden of proof to be heavily on the state and for all to err heavily on the side of presumed innocence. SOPA is the very model of presumption of guilt - and it goes one further, allowing "justice" to be meted out entirely on the insistence of a private entity rather than by verdict of a trial. Often, the wrongly accused won't even get the chance to defend themselves since depriving them of their lifeblood will make it impossible for them to afford their own defense - and even if they do successfully defend themselves, the damage would all to often already be done. This would bring a heavy toll upon the "openness" of the internet that made it great, and make it a very discouraging place to try to be an entrepreneur when an established, entrenched, monopolistic competitor has the tools to adjudicate you instantly out of business.

And it won't even stop piracy. You can fudge DNSes all you want, but pirate hosts files will easily circumvent that. Just for starters. Darknets will be unaffected. At its very most effective, it would still do nothing to the bastion of 90's piracy: IRC DCC transfer bots.

Furthermore, as with most things, the marketplace is already starting to adjust - musical piracy is much on the decline. Some would have you believe it's because of crackdowns on P2P software like limewire, but there's still tons of music available via bittorrent. The real reason that music isn't pirated as much as it used to be is because the marketplace for music has changed to become more easy and reasonable. iTunes, Amazon and other services make it easy and fast to get the particular song you want inexpensively, legitimately, and in many cases DRM-free. And beyond that, any time you want to hear a song but don't want to buy it, you can easily stream it from VEVO's youtube account (which is a joint venture of the big name labels themselves). In short, the marketplace has made piracy unneccessary, and made legitimacy convenient and inexpensive. THAT is how you kill piracy - not by tightening your grip and refusing to stop clinging to an outdated business model.

Nov 17, 2011#25

Chibibar

but such an intervention to fight against the Few warrant such an action? Yes there are pirates, but there are also legit people out there who ARE buying (hence making millions of dollars) there will always be people who will take advantage of the system.

Maybe the social nature should change to back in the days of old. You steal, we chop off your hand, steal again, you die. So if you pirate, we chop of a hand, pirate again? then you die. I'm sure pirating and crime will go down REAL quick.

If you are guilty of murder and after 3 appeal still guilty? then off you go, no more death row.

It is a bit extreme? yea, but I thought we, the people, have grown from the dark ages and can exist in the new.

Nov 17, 2011#26

GasBandit

Also, it's hard to say where cultural progress ends and moral relativism begins. If there was a federal crackdown on gay marriage, would you blame the homosexual? Or do you argue that the laws no longer reflect the legitimate will of society?

Nov 17, 2011#27

Dave

Let's look at this another way: One bad link or picture or YouTube link and I'd have to shut this place down. I don't have the money for a lawyer and couldn't afford to be sued.

Nov 17, 2011#28

Krisken

Dave said:
Let's look at this another way: One bad link or picture or YouTube link and I'd have to shut this place down. I don't have the money for a lawyer and couldn't afford to be sued.

Hey now, no fair coming up with an example which hits close to home!

Nov 17, 2011#29

Chibibar

I agree with you Gas. By making product available and affordable, people WILL pay for it. Now of course there will be people who will never pay for it. These people you can't really set laws that punish the masses and won't effect these people at all.

Nov 17, 2011#30

GasBandit

Dave said:
Let's look at this another way: One bad link or picture or YouTube link and I'd have to shut this place down. I don't have the money for a lawyer and couldn't afford to be sued.

That was my first thought reading about it, too... heh. Might as well call this the "Death to all internet forums" bill.

Nov 17, 2011#31

Necronic

GasBandit said:
Also, it's hard to say where cultural progress ends and moral relativism begins. If there was a federal crackdown on gay marriage, would you blame the homosexual? Or do you argue that the laws no longer reflect the legitimate will of society?

I don't think that piracy and gay marriage are in the same moral basket. Because one is innocuous and the other is unethical.

However, your previous point was well made. It still doesn't remove part of the blame from the pirates themselves, but it does a good job of illustrating the innefectual nature of the policy as well as the supremely unethical nature of it.

Keeping with "ye olden politik" it's kind of like an internet Alien and Sedition Act.

Nov 17, 2011#32

Shegokigo

Dave said:
Average age of House of Representatives: 55.9 years old
Average age of Senate: 61.7 years old
Dave's Age: 460 years old

Totally agree. They're way off comparing you to them.

Nov 17, 2011#33

GasBandit

Necronic said:
I don't think that piracy and gay marriage are in the same moral basket. Because one is innocuous and the other is unethical.

But such concerns don't necessarily govern legality. And I guarantee you I can go outside this office and find a large number of people who don't find the legalization gay marriage, or gays in the military, innocuous or moral, simple creatures though they be. That's why it was illegal to begin with. The laws are now beginning to change after decades of loud public dissent.

But just to keep the argument rolling, let's look at the federal crackdown on pot in california - the federal government is putting dispensaries in California out of business that are legal under California law.

Living in Texas, you and I can surely both rattle off a vast number of examples of how our government (in our case, even our state and local governments) can perpetrate all kinds of reprehensible acts all in the name of enforcing the letter of the law... or perhaps even going a bit further. Like the time Texas DPS officers went into a hotel bar and started arresting people because they MIGHT drive home drunk. Even the ones who had rooms at the hotel for the night.

Nov 17, 2011#34

sixpackshaker

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

The backlash pretty much got the TABC shut down.

Nov 17, 2011#35

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Last_Call

The backlash pretty much got the TABC shut down.

Oh no it didn't. Operation Last Call ended in 06... the TABC went on to beat the shit out of some homos at the Rainbow Lounge in 09.

Nov 17, 2011#36

Chibibar

Necronic said:
I don't think that piracy and gay marriage are in the same moral basket. Because one is innocuous and the other is unethical.

Well. Piracy is "theft" of possible income of IP which different people feel differently. Since money makes the person's world go round, anything that prevents you earning your money legally can be a problem.

I wouldn't consider gay marriage unethical. It might be consider unethical in religious sense, but not everyone have the same religion/belief. I believe that everyone should have equal rights as a couple if you are going to give rights to couples.

Nov 17, 2011#37

GasBandit

Chibibar said:
Well. Piracy is "theft" of possible income of IP which different people feel differently. Since money makes the person's world go round, anything that prevents you earning your money legally can be a problem.

I wouldn't consider gay marriage unethical. It might be consider unethical in religious sense, but not everyone have the same religion/belief. I believe that everyone should have equal rights as a couple if you are going to give rights to couples.

You've missed the point. Of course there's nothing unethical about gay marriage. The point is that the morality of the populace is supposed to be what derives the legality of the law. When the two become out of sync, the law has to change.

In related news, 46% of americans (70% of young americans) own up to piracy. And yet the copyrighted IP industry is showing higher profit than ever.

Nov 17, 2011#38

Chibibar

GasBandit said:
You've missed the point. Of course there's nothing unethical about gay marriage. The point is that the morality of the populace is supposed to be what derives the legality of the law. When the two become out of sync, the law has to change.

In related news, 46% of americans (70% of young americans) own up to piracy. And yet the copyrighted IP industry is showing higher profit than ever.

Ah. Now I understand better.

Yea. I do use iTunes as a good example to combat music piracy. Before it was expensive and can only buy CDs or Single if you are lucky. iTunes change all that via 99 cent a song. People can finally a-la-cart their music need and the company made TONS of money. Rockband also change the DLC (IMO) via charging $1.99 for a SONG that you can play on a video game. They made millions. Heck, even some band release their music EARLY via Rockband (I can't remember what band/song, but my wife bought it hehe)

Of course there are company who take DLC/add on/a la cart too far with games

We have made post where the game you buy may not be a "full game" as it use to be and DLC actually "complete" the game instead of enhancing it further (the Mona Lisa picture example is a nice touch)

Take Skyrim. It sold millions of copies and I am willing to bet that game is pirated as well, but since the game is good, people are willing to shell out $60+ dollars for the game (tax and/or deluxe edition)

Nov 17, 2011#39

Frankie Williamson

I pirated and bought Skyrim.

Boom.

Nov 17, 2011#40

Hailey Knight

Congress is beginning to feel like a distant monarch, completely out of touch with what's going on in any given part of the country.

Nov 17, 2011#41

Krisken

And it's spreading to the state legislatures as well.

Nov 17, 2011#42

Espy

Quotemander Prime said:
Congress is beginning to feel like a distant monarch, completely out of touch with what's going on in any given part of the country.

Worst. Monarchy. Ever.

Nov 17, 2011#43

SpecialKO

When it's good to be the king, it's bad to be the subjects.

Nov 17, 2011#44

GasBandit

So we're finally getting our answer after all these centuries about the difference between 1 tyrant 3000 miles away and 3000 tyrants 1 mile away.

Nov 17, 2011#45

Krisken

It takes longer for the rich to buy them off?

Nov 18, 2011#46

Hailey Knight

Yesterday apparently 700,000 emails had been sent to Congress. Not sure where we're at today. I hope it's making clear that people aren't happy about this.

Nov 22, 2011#47

@Li3n

Ever felt the need to contribute to a filibuster? Here's your chance to: http://stopcensorship.org./

Nov 22, 2011#48

ScytheRexx

Signed my name, already written a letter, we must not let this happen.

Nov 24, 2011#49

@Li3n

A wild Microsoft appears: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-5...ght-bill/?part=rss&subj=latest-news&tag=title

Dec 15, 2011#50

LittleSin

Guys, I'm watching the SOPA hearing right now. I have a question.

Are politicians always this wishy washy?

Dec 15, 2011#51

Tress

LittleSin said:
Guys, I'm watching the SOPA hearing right now. I have a question.

Are politicians always this wishy washy?

Only when constituents might be watching.

Dec 15, 2011#52

LittleSin

They are arguing over a tweet that a person made right now. He isn't at the thingy (techinal term, no?) and is tweeting about how it if farting aroundon the internet.

Fuckin really?

Dec 15, 2011#53

Dave

Wishy washy?!? They've already taken sides and no amount of debate is changing their minds - which have been bought and paid for.

Dec 15, 2011#54

LittleSin

Why the hell am I even watching this? I am growing steadily more disgusted.

They are fighting over a WORD this lady said. They want the word 'offensive' struck from the record. Is it that big of a deal? That she said a word?

Dec 15, 2011#55

Dave

And she's not backing down. Good for her!

Dec 17, 2011#56

Hailey Knight

TV distracted people, while the internet's been used to mount protests and spread information. Congress wants us to go back to watching TV.

There's a list that one unnamed Senator apparently intends to read, of every name on a list of people against SOPA, and I wonder some things. One, most companies sound against this, so someone must be saying one thing and paying another into Congress's pockets, otherwise this bill would be dead. Two, how much clamoring must we peasants do before turning Congress heads? I thought these were our representatives, with our best interests in mind, not our rulers.

Dec 18, 2011#57

Bowielee

Holy Crap, I'm actually reading through the text of this, and man, they are casting a WIDE net. Basically, they're invoking the power to shut down any payment site that is associated with "foreign piracy". So, basically, we can see paypal and the like to be replaced by the new and improved "pay a fee for every transaction corporate model".

I can hardly believe that this thing is seriously being considered.

This is Orwellian on a grand scale.

Also, I love how they're selling this as a protection of american jobs. This bill will literally put thousands of people out of work.

Dec 18, 2011#58

Krisken

Bowielee said:
Also, I love how they're selling this as a protection of american jobs. This bill will literally put thousands of people out of work.

It protects the jobs of the people who are important- The CEO's.

Dec 18, 2011#59

LittleSin

Hell, if I'm reading it right, THIS site could be shut down several times over.

Dec 18, 2011#60

AshburnerX

LittleSin said:
Hell, if I'm reading it right, THIS site could be shut down several times over.

That's sort of the point. Corporations are notoriously litigious and are more than willing to file papers if only to get their way. The mere threat of a lawsuit and Dave would shut this place down in a heartbeat. Anyone would.

Dec 19, 2011#61

@Li3n

AshburnerX said:
The mere threat of a lawsuit and Dave would shut this place down in a heartbeat. Anyone would.

Except someone running a torrent site, who'd just move it... as they're already used to...

Did you know demonoid is blocked in Ukraine?

Dec 19, 2011#62

Bowielee

Also, no more TGWTG or Blistered Thumbs. Fair Use be damned, they'll file suit. Also, YouTube, hell, even IMDB and Wikipedia could be on the chopping block under these totalitarian terms.

Dec 19, 2011#63

AshburnerX

mr_thehun said:
Or they would host it outside of the us. This bill is going to do wonders of ensuring the next generation of innovators will come from outside of america.

I don't think it would matter if it was hosted outside the US. Technically all the filming and editing took place in the US, so the actual "infringement" might still be actionable.

Dec 19, 2011#64

LittleSin

That and they petitioning google to 'block' access to such sites. You know, like Chine.

Dec 19, 2011#65

Hailey Knight

LittleSin said:
That and they petitioning google to 'block' access to such sites. You know, like Chine.

Apparently from Nostalgia Chick's video, Rob was mentioning one suit saying, "If Google can block sites for China, why can't they do it for us?"

-_- It's funny, how many decades America was fighting against even the idea of becoming a communist nation.

Dec 19, 2011#66

figmentPez

mr_thehun said:
Or they would host it outside of the us.

So, legislators, tell me again how moving server hosting overseas protects US jobs?

Dec 19, 2011#67

Hailey Knight

SOPA creator has received donations equally over half a million dollars in support from TV/Film/Music Industry for his political campaigns over the last decade.

Not that anyone's surprised.

I'm so fucking done with the federal legislative branch.

Dec 19, 2011#68

GasBandit

Quotemander Prime said:
SOPA creator has received donations equally over half a million dollars in support from TV/Film/Music Industry for his political campaigns over the last decade.

Not that anyone's surprised.

I'm so fucking done with the federal legislative branch.

Welcome to the fold. Choose your flavor - Libertarianism, or Despotism?

Dec 19, 2011#69

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Welcome to the fold. Choose your flavor - Libertarianism, or Despotism?

Nuke-from-orbitism. It's the only way to be sure.

Dec 19, 2011#70

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
Nuke-from-orbitism. It's the only way to be sure.

Welcome to my underground lair.

Dec 19, 2011#71

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Welcome to my underground lair.

No lairs. We will all go together when we go.

Dec 19, 2011#72

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
No lairs. We will all go together when we go.

Well, we have to BUILD the bombs somewhere hidden or the bluepills will take them away from us before they're all ready.

Dec 19, 2011#73

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Well, we have to BUILD the bombs somewhere hidden or the bluepills will take them away from us before they're all ready.

Once more, but in English this time?

Dec 19, 2011#74

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
Once more, but in English this time?

Never mind, you're kicked out of the lair. I'll do it myself. You'd probably just knock shit over and grumble all day anyway.

Dec 19, 2011#75

DarkAudit

What part of no lairs did you miss? No survivors.

Dec 19, 2011#76

Krisken

The Grinch is the last person to declare no lairs. Just sayin.

Dec 19, 2011#77

DarkAudit

This Grinch has given up. When one senator is a Rockefeller and the other is unashamedly a spokeslackey for the most murderous of Big Coal, what hope is left?

Dec 19, 2011#78

PatrThom

For real progress, the constituents must right their representatives.

--Patrick

Dec 20, 2011#79

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
What part of no lairs did you miss? No survivors.

You were kicked out of the lair because you didn't understand the purpose of the lair was not survival.

Dec 20, 2011#80

LordRendar

Less talking GB...more bomb building.

Dec 20, 2011#81

FBI

ಠ_ಠ

Dec 20, 2011#82

Necronic

Since this was at one point about RIAA stuff I thought you guys might like this little story

http://gizmodo.com/5869321/dear-recording-industry-pay-9-million-for-pirating-tv-shows-or-shut-up

It's about cats.

Dec 20, 2011#83

GasBandit

Two things - word has it the house might try to sneak SOPA through this week after all, and here's a handy firefox plugin that completely castrates SOPA.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/170...ts-internet-blacklisting-if-sopa-becomes-law/

Dec 20, 2011#84

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
Two things - word has it the house might try to sneak SOPA through this week after all, and here's a handy firefox plugin that completely castrates SOPA.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/170...ts-internet-blacklisting-if-sopa-becomes-law/

Thank you, Firefox!

Dec 20, 2011#85

AshburnerX

Yeah, installed it too.

Dec 20, 2011#86

GasBandit

And the vote has been kicked back to january again.

Dec 20, 2011#87

Krisken

I won't relax until it goes to committee.

Dec 21, 2011#88

@Li3n

So did you guys hear, SOPA will work because only 3% of users in "countries that engage in substantial filtering" are circumventing those filter (on page 8): http://www.itif.org/files/2011-pipa-sopa-respond-critics.pdf

See, China doesn't have a piracy problem because it blocks it's internet... :rofl:

Seriously, i can't wait to be back to the way things where in the 90's, when you had to go buy a pirated copy from teh shady guy that had access to high enough speed internet to d/l the iso for about 3-4 times the cost of a blank CD... and then you'd make a copy for all your friends... it's way better because it's really imposible to track then and the made up numbers they'll use arguing against piracy will be even more imaginary.

Dec 21, 2011#89

Frankie Williamson

Well, back to the Direct Connect days.

Dec 21, 2011#90

LordRendar

You can also send musik albums via MSN,so sharing with a friend is still a viable option. Better yet,if that friend lives in a country where you can download stuff (we are talking theoretically). Unless SOPA banns MSN or all the other InstaMessengers that allow sharing/sending of files.

Dec 22, 2011#91

figmentPez

This is a good video on the hypocrisy of the media companies, and how they promoted and distributed file sharing software for more than a decade:

Dec 22, 2011#92

ScytheRexx

My god... that video. I never even realized half the things he pointed out, but the facts are there. I myself remember downloading LimeWire when it was one of the top downloads on Downloads.com, and it never even occurred to me that the website was owned by CBS. Kazaa, Grokster, EDonkey, I got all of them from Download.com.

Get the video out people, get it out to everyone you know.

Dec 24, 2011#93

Wahad

re: that video:

Dec 29, 2011#94

Hailey Knight

Boston DA wants info on Twitter account; Twitter forwards subpoena to user, who publicizes it

I guess the Boston PD are pissed over Occupy Boston tweets.

One of the commenters makes a good point--if SOPA/PIPA were already passed, the government could simply shut down Twitter entirely until they gave in. I feel like many of our elected officials wish they had power in a country without free speech.

Dec 31, 2011#95

evilmike

It looks like it has officially lost some supporters:

GoDaddy comes out in favor of Sopa, is threatened by a boycott, is threatened with the loss of all of the icanhazcheeseburger sites, back pedals, and then pack pedals some more.

Nintendo, Electronic Arts and Sony Electronics have withdrawn support for Sopa as well.

There are still a number of supporters, which can be found here.

Dec 31, 2011#96

Bowielee

evilmike said:
Nintendo, Electronic Arts and Sony Electronics have withdrawn support for Sopa as well.

Wow, this I found very surprising.

Dec 31, 2011#97

drifter

Well, technically they still support it through ESA, and given that the main purpose of ESA is lobbying on behalf of it's members... yeah.

Jan 5, 2012#98

ScytheRexx

Oh look, the US decided to bully Spain into making a SOPA-style law.

Spanish Piracy Law

This stuff is just starting to scare me.

Jan 5, 2012#99

Dave

When did we stop being the brother everyone looked up to and turn into the mean older brother who pulls underwear over the heads of the smaller kids?

Jan 5, 2012#100

Adammon

Dave said:
When did we stop being the brother everyone looked up to and turn into the mean older brother who pulls underwear over the heads of the smaller kids?

As a Canadian, I would have to say 1812.

Jan 5, 2012#101

AshburnerX

Dave said:
When did we stop being the brother everyone looked up to and turn into the mean older brother who pulls underwear over the heads of the smaller kids?

Right around the time the kid in red got the same brand of firecrackers we did. Then we flipped out because only WE should have firecrackers (and maybe a few of our closest friends, if they do as we say.)

Jan 5, 2012#102

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
Right around the time the kid in red got the same brand of firecrackers we did. Then we flipped out because only WE should have firecrackers (and maybe a few of our closest friends, if they do as we say.)

Well, if that's the metaphor, maybe we should stop giving all the other kids lunch money, since they can all afford firecrackers.

Jan 5, 2012#103

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Well, if that's the metaphor, maybe we should stop giving all the other kids lunch money, since they can all afford firecrackers.

You don't have to tell me twice. I'm still wondering why we gave them lunch money to begin with. Sure, some of them need it and use it responsibly (or try to), but a lot of them don't.

Jan 5, 2012#104

Calleja

reddit insists that SOPA is so over the top that it's just a "distraction" for the less ridiculous but still dangerous to everything that is right and holy ProtectIP act.

I dunno, I just know that trying to censor an increasingly technologically prolific population is not gonna work for long.

Jan 5, 2012#105

PatrThom

Calleja said:
reddit insists that SOPA is so over the top that it's just a "distraction" for the less ridiculous but still dangerous to everything that is right and holy ProtectIP act.

Seconded.

All this is going to do is make it harder for Congresspeople to be able to find and watch free porn on their laptops while they are sitting in session. And THEN they will complain.

--Patrick

Jan 5, 2012#106

Tress

"Won't someone think of the porn?!"

Jan 5, 2012#107

sixpackshaker

Tress said:
"Won't someone think of the porn?!"

Is that like "the game?"

You just lost.

and now I'm thinking about porn...

Jan 6, 2012#108

@Li3n

ScytheRexx said:
Oh look, the US decided to bully Spain into making a SOPA-style law.

Spanish Piracy Law

This stuff is just starting to scare me.

The US bullying another country to do something that is in the countries interest but in the US's?

How unheard of....

Jan 9, 2012#109

evilmike

Congressman targeted on Reddit won't support SOPA

Jan 13, 2012#110

@Li3n

And of course: http://www.vice.com/read/lamar-smith-sopa-copyright-whoops

Jan 13, 2012#111

Hailey Knight

Wikipedia is considering a blackout in protest of SOPA.

5th most-used site on the internet. That would certainly wake up the people who aren't aware of these bills.

Jan 13, 2012#112

ScytheRexx

I hope they do it. Hope other large sites like Google do the same. That will really get the message out.

Jan 13, 2012#113

Ravenpoe

Last I heard, so were Google, Facebook, and Amazon.

But hey, we'll still have yahoo, myspace, and ebay!

Jan 13, 2012#114

@Li3n

Quotemander Prime said:
Wikipedia is considering a blackout in protest of SOPA.

5th most-used site on the internet. That would certainly wake up the people who aren't aware of these bills.

Are college finals going on now where you guys are too? Because if they are blacking out wiki will be very successful...

Jan 13, 2012#115

sixpackshaker

It would be brilliant that for a 24 hour period, that Google, Wikipedia, Yahoo!, etc would only post links to an anti-SOPA open letter.

Jan 13, 2012#116

Hailey Knight

@Li3n said:
Are college finals going on now where you guys are too? Because if they are blacking out wiki will be very successful...

College will just be starting up again next week after the winter break. Mid-terms in March, finals in May.

Jan 13, 2012#117

@Li3n

Quotemander Prime said:
College will just be starting up again next week after the winter break. Mid-terms in March, finals in May.

Or, right, you name the 2 differently... we start the equivalent of mid-terms at the end of January here... they normally last a couple of weeks into Feb...

Jan 13, 2012#118

Shakey

DNS provision pulled from SOPA
Looks like the worst of it is getting stripped from the bill now.

Jan 14, 2012#119

figmentPez

Shakey said:
DNS provision pulled from SOPA
Looks like the worst of it is getting stripped from the bill now.

So it won't completely break the internet, it'll just break searching the internet and still be an effective method to quash free speech.

Jan 14, 2012#120

Hailey Knight

figmentPez said:
So it won't completely break the internet, it'll just break searching the internet and still be an effective method to quash free speech.

It breaks down the true threat that goes beyond what's in the bill--that the major media companies could say "We don't like that site; accuse them of piracy to shut them down, then keep it tied up in courts for years." We don't want them having control of the internet and removing the DNS blocking provision strips that power away.

Jan 14, 2012#121

figmentPez

Quotemander Prime said:
It breaks down the true threat that goes beyond what's in the bill--that the major media companies could say "We don't like that site; accuse them of piracy to shut them down, then keep it tied up in courts for years." We don't want them having control of the internet and removing the DNS blocking provision strips that power away.

Except they would still have the power to block sites from search indexes. DNS blocking may be a bigger problem, but being blocked from Google, Yahoo, etc. is still a significant issue.

Jan 14, 2012#122

Hailey Knight

The White House weighs in.

Jan 15, 2012#123

Frankie Williamson

And Rupert Murdoch is pissed about it

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/15/us-murdoch-piracy-idUSTRE80E0JA20120115

Which pretty much makes the White Houses decision a good one. If Rupert Murdoch is mad at you, you've probably done the right thing.

Jan 15, 2012#124

Krisken

Frankie Williamson said:
And Rupert Murdoch is pissed about it

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/15/us-murdoch-piracy-idUSTRE80E0JA20120115

Which pretty much makes the White Houses decision a good one. If Rupert Murdoch is mad at you, you've probably done the right thing.

Of course he is, he's a media mogul. He's about as neutral on this as the RIAA.

Jan 15, 2012#125

Frankie Williamson

Yeah, but I think there's a difference if say Richard Branson was getting angry or Mark Cuban or someone like that. Being against Rupert Murdoch is like being automatically right.

Jan 16, 2012#126

GasBandit

VICTOLY. For now...
Added at: 11:47
So, now we need to make sure we clean house...

Jan 16, 2012#127

Covar

Hmm, only one guy from NC and he's not my district. Score one for our growing tech industry I suppose.

Jan 16, 2012#128

@Li3n

Frankie Williamson said:
And Rupert Murdoch is pissed about it

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/15/us-murdoch-piracy-idUSTRE80E0JA20120115

He was spouting crap about google earlier...

Jan 16, 2012#129

Hailey Knight

PIPA is still going. Gotta stop that one too.
Added at: 19:14

GasBandit said:
VICTOLY. For now...
Added at: 11:47
So, now we need to make sure we clean house...

No one from my state.

Jan 17, 2012#130

evilmike

Day of protest tomorrow. Wikipedia, Reddit, BoingBoing, all of the cheeseburger sites, and many other sites are not going to be available.

Google will be available, but will include a protest statement on its main page.

List of participants here.

Jan 17, 2012#131

Covar

Google should provide random "no results available" pages throughout the day.

Jan 17, 2012#132

Frankie Williamson

I think if they want the message across, youtube would have to go down.

Jan 17, 2012#133

figmentPez

MPAA calls the SOPA protests an abuse of power

MPAA said:
It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.

A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals. It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this “blackout” to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy.

Wow, the level of hypocrisy there is absurd.

Jan 17, 2012#134

Hailey Knight

It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today.

I bet they'd love to take those freedoms away with a simple piracy accusation.

Jan 17, 2012#135

Frankie Williamson

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST....I just don't have the words.

Jan 17, 2012#136

Hailey Knight

Think of it like this: MPAA is pissed that this "stunt" will inform people previously unaware of what is happening.

They are anti-awareness because they know the backlash it could have.

Fucking unreal.

Jan 17, 2012#137

figmentPez

Quotemander Prime said:
Think of it like this: MPAA is pissed that this "stunt" will inform people previously unaware of what is happening.

They are anti-awareness because they know the backlash it could have.

Fucking unreal.

It boggles the mind. A group that has knowingly prosecuted innocent people in no way has the right to talk about the dissemination of knowledge as an abuse of power.

Jan 17, 2012#138

Frankie Williamson

I understand it all, I was just furious, mostly over this line:

It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.

Jan 17, 2012#139

Covar

Because there's been coverage of SOPA and PIPA in traditional media outlets :rolleyes:

Jan 18, 2012#140

@Li3n

Covar said:
Because there's been coverage of SOPA and PIPA in traditional media outlets

Exactly, they're not skewing fact on their side... just hiding them...

Jan 18, 2012#141

evilmike

Meanwhile, on Google:

Jan 18, 2012#142

Mathias

Step it up. Contact your state congressmen and tell them "NO on SOPA/PIPA"

Wiki's blackout page links you directly to your respective congressmen's contact information.

Jan 18, 2012#143

ThatNickGuy

ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com is down.

THATGUYWITHTHEGLASSES.COM IS DOWN!?

Jan 18, 2012#144

Covar

Good, those pirates had it coming! With all their flaunting of pirated content and piracy. Also Batman and Superman GIFs? YOU'RE STEALING MOVIES AND TV SHOWS!!

Can we get someone to do the right thing and delete Nick's post? He's killing American jobs.

Jan 18, 2012#145

ScytheRexx

The Penguin in his stereotypical monocle with stacks of money falling off the table makes this fit all the better for me.

Jan 18, 2012#146

sixpackshaker

Man, you guys better be entertaining today. I am caught up on my work and have some time to kill. AND THERE IS NO WIKIPEDIA!!1!!!!!!11!!!

Jan 18, 2012#147

ScytheRexx

Who cares about Wikipedia? I lost the fucking Cheezeburger Network. No Failbook, No Rage Comics, No The Daily What, that place is like 50% of my workday! It's going to be a long day today.

Jan 18, 2012#148

MindDetective

/First world problems.

Jan 18, 2012#149

ScytheRexx

MindDetective said:
/First world problems.

I would find a picture of that meme if I could go to memebase.

Jan 18, 2012#150

Covar

ScytheRexx said:
I would find a picture of that meme if I could go to memebase.

*cough*RSS*cough*

Jan 18, 2012#151

sixpackshaker

I guess Scott will protest by not updating PvP today...

Jan 18, 2012#152

evilmike

The message is getting out there, though not everyone seems to understand it: Herpderpedia.

Jan 18, 2012#153

MindDetective

Jan 18, 2012#154

ScytheRexx

Jan 18, 2012#155

GasBandit

So you guys ready to sign on to my "murder the world" idea yet?

Jan 18, 2012#156

LordRendar

Yes.But what are the dental plans?

Jan 18, 2012#157

Necronic

OH MY GOD I HAVE TO USE CACHED VERSION OF WIKIPEDIA FOR TODAY HOW INCREDIBLY MILDY INCONVENIENT!

Seriously they didn't really think this one out did they.

Jan 18, 2012#158

Covar

Necronic said:
OH MY GOD I HAVE TO USE CACHED VERSION OF WIKIPEDIA FOR TODAY HOW INCREDIBLY MILDY INCONVENIENT!

Seriously they didn't really think this one out did they.

or just use the mobile site.

Jan 18, 2012#159

ScytheRexx

Necronic said:
Seriously they didn't really think this one out did they.

You do realize the blackout was not designed to hit the internet savvy, correct?

Even my own posts about cheezeburger above were in jest. Hell, you can bypass the Wikipedia block by simply hitting the "stop" icon on your browser right before it does the redirect to the blackout page or using NoScript in Firefox.

This was designed as a method to bring awareness of the issue, and what it means, to those that are not keeping up on the problem. For every funny "OMG WIKIPEDIA BLACK OMG THE FUCK" you see on twitter, you have many more informing them of the reason, causing even more to be looking into the issue and becoming aware of it that will get more names in with congress to stop this madness before it goes any further.

You are not the person this was designed for Necronic, so your comments just seem silly.

Jan 18, 2012#160

Dave

My representative has withdrawn his support!!

Jan 18, 2012#161

ScytheRexx

Dave said:
My representative has withdrawn his support!!

A few have, many of them co-sponsors of PIPA that have decided to no longer support either bill. This is great news.

Jan 18, 2012#162

Ravenpoe

Marco Rubio, my senator (though I didn't vote for him) down here in Florida, has also pulled his support.

Jan 18, 2012#163

Covar

Excellent article by the always entertaining and informative Andy Ihnatko.

Jan 18, 2012#164

Zappit

Anyone see this? Looks like its getting shelved. http://www.gamespot.com/news/congress-shelves-sopa-6348670?tag=updates;trending;all;title;9

Jan 18, 2012#165

SpecialKO

ScytheRexx said:
Who cares about Wikipedia? I lost the fucking Cheezeburger Network. No Failbook, No Rage Comics, No The Daily What, that place is like 50% of my workday! It's going to be a long day today.

...TvTropes is still up.

...you're welcome! :twisted:

Jan 18, 2012#166

ScytheRexx

Zappit said:
Anyone see this? Looks like its getting shelved. http://www.gamespot.com/news/congress-shelves-sopa-6348670?tag=updates;trending;all;title;9

That was two days ago, and from what I hear, it was a tactic to try and stop what is going on today (Internet Blackout Day). The bill has not actually been "shelved" but simply held off till congress convenes again. Whether that is true or not, I don't know, but the bill still "exists" and we won't have won till it gets destroyed, shelved or not.

BTW, Athene has been live streaming his own attempts to stop SOPA by doing tweet bombs, basically going to the twitter accounts of senators and imploring them to not support SOPA. So far they have been getting responses and have caused a few to withdraw support, including another PIPA cosponser, Orrin Hatch.

http://www.athenelive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1801

He also gives links to the twitter accounts of senators who support the bill to continue the communication.

Jan 18, 2012#167

Hailey Knight

sixpackshaker said:
I guess Scott will protest by not updating PvP today...

Not only did he update, but yesterday on Twitter he was going on about how he's not going down to protest it. Penny Arcade seems to hold the same perspective of not giving a shit. I expected it from Scott, but not from the PA guys.

Jan 18, 2012#168

evilmike

Quotemander Prime said:
Not only did he update, but yesterday on Twitter he was going on about how he's not going down to protest it. Penny Arcade seems to hold the same perspective of not giving a shit. I expected it from Scott, but not from the PA guys.

PATV Season 3, Ep. 24a - Stand Together: The Gaming Community vs SOPA and PIPA

As for Scott, let's be fair, it's not like any other webcomics from controversial artists took a stand.

Oh. Um.... awkward.http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/stand-together-the-gaming-community-vs-sopa-and-pipa

Jan 18, 2012#169

Shegokigo

http://www.vgcats.com/

Probably one of the funniest black outs.

Jan 18, 2012#170

AshburnerX

That black out would have probably been more effective if he'd actually update his comics more than once a month.

Jan 18, 2012#171

Shegokigo

Most of the Black Outs are pointless, as stated before, they're preaching (mostly) to the choir. I still found it amusing.

Jan 18, 2012#172

ScytheRexx

While not hitting as hard of an audience as Wikipedia or Google (even Reddit is mostly preaching to the choir), the sheer amount can lead to more word of mouth, which leads to more interest and even coverage. I wouldn't call it pointless.

If just two big companies did it, it wouldn't have the impact as when someone says hundreds did it, even if those hundreds are probably websites I will never visit, the fact they did it would make me more curious.

Jan 18, 2012#173

Hailey Knight

AshburnerX said:
That black out would have probably been more effective if he'd actually update his comics more than once a month.

That's the joke.

Jan 18, 2012#174

ScytheRexx

Jan 18, 2012#175

Hailey Knight

Congress speakers back-pedaling, say bills "not ready for a vote" or "prime time".

Then why were you fuckers gonna vote on them last week? I wonder if they intended this bill to stop the internet from cataloging political flip-flops.

Jan 18, 2012#176

Mathias

Quotemander Prime said:
That's the joke.

Jan 18, 2012#177

Tiq

Jan 19, 2012#178

@Li3n

Shegokigo said:
Most of the Black Outs are pointless, as stated before, they're preaching (mostly) to the choir. I still found it amusing.

I don't know, thousands of websites sounds like a better news item then just wikipedia and a few black bars on google...

Jan 19, 2012#179

Tiq

http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exc...ions-because-of-administrations-piracy-stand/

Woah...

Jan 19, 2012#180

AshburnerX

Wonder how long it's going to take them to realize the Republicans won't do it for them ether? Especially since their party is in the middle of an identity crisis.

It's not like Hollywood can pack up and move, unless they fancy doing everything over in New Zealand. They need to accept that they need to change business models if they want to stay relevant.

Jan 19, 2012#181

@Li3n

AshburnerX said:
It's not like Hollywood can pack up and move, unless they fancy doing everything over in New Zealand.

Funny you should say that... considering that the reason why they're on the east coast is because that's the farthest they could go from Edison and his pesky patent on video cameras...

But hey, it's only theft when it's your cash cow...

Jan 19, 2012#182

AshburnerX

It honestly doesn't matter anyway... the Studio heads might not be paying, but the actors and unions will. Hollywood is Left Wing on a fundamental level and this isn't going to change that. It's going to hurt Obama, but I don't see the studio heads supporting the Republican candidate when it's the Right Wing that wants to censor their content and break up their unions.

Say what you will about the Studio heads, but SAG and the trade unions aren't going to back a Republican on a national level. They depend on the Left Wing for their survival.

Jan 19, 2012#183

Jay

So... according to SOPA you can get five years for downloading a Michael Jackson song illegally. That's a year more than the doctor who killed him...

Jan 19, 2012#184

strawman

Jay said:
So... according to SOPA you can get five years for downloading a Michael Jackson song illegally. That's a year more than the doctor who killed him...

Yes, but the doctor didn't intend to kill MJ. You downloaded the song knowingly and deprived him of his living and, as all true artists know, this death by copyright violation is a far more painful and malicious death than overdosing on anesthetics.

First degree copyright violation obviously trumps involuntary manslaughter.

Jan 19, 2012#185

@Li3n

Heh:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16628143
He argued that while Wikipedia was a valued resource, it would be more noticeable to the world if rights holders were to switch off their content for a day.

"Think what you would lose.

"If you walked around the streets of America or Britain with no creative content available to you, because rights holders had decided to shut up shop, you would be deprived of the BBC, cinemas, radio, bookstores and so on.

My answer: Who cares, we'd just go on the internet to watch funny pictures of cats... that's what we're doing anyway, which is why you're so scared in the 1st place.

AshburnerX said:
It honestly doesn't matter anyway... the Studio heads might not be paying, but the actors and unions will. Hollywood is Left Wing on a fundamental level and this isn't going to change that. It's going to hurt Obama, but I don't see the studio heads supporting the Republican candidate when it's the Right Wing that wants to censor their content and break up their unions.

Say what you will about the Studio heads, but SAG and the trade unions aren't going to back a Republican on a national level. They depend on the Left Wing for their survival.

Well if you want to go with what matters then i for one would go with teh fact that all these moguls are complaining about the fact that Obama didn't do what they paid him money for...

Jan 19, 2012#186

PatrThom

Frankie Williamson said:
I think if they want the message across, redtube would have to go down.

FTFY

--Patrick

Jan 19, 2012#187

ScytheRexx

What boggles my mind is how these people can't seem to understand the far-reaching consequences of these bills. The argument always falls to "protecting jobs" but this will hurt more jobs then it protects. What are some of the industries with the most growth? Google, Facebook, etc... Smart tech and web-based companies are on the rise and only growing stronger, providing more and more jobs.

What is going to happen if SOPA passes? Best case scenario Google has to shut down most of it's creative websites because it has no possible way to police them, removing countless jobs in development towards things like youtube, google video, google images, maybe even things like google documents, considering how far reaching the bill applies enabling of piracy (I could copy a book and post it on google documents, making it open to read). Worst case scenario, Google decides the best way to avoid the legal issues at all is to move overseas to another country, one that does not carry such laws, thus removing all those jobs from Americans entirely.

What will this do for those media jobs they are attempting to protect? Nothing, because pirating will still be nearly everywhere else in the world, and will only be mildly inconvenient of pirates in the US. Removing the DNS or search ability will not stop pirates from finding websites through direct server connections, it will not stop people from utilizing random proxy services to download those files through the undernet. Best case scenario, they may gain a few more sales each release from those kiddies that don't understand the technical side of things, but the more LIKELY outcome is that those kiddies will just stop playing said games entirely. They were not planning to buy them in the first place, thus why they pirated it, so they are not likely to pay for it anyways.

I am starting to lean more on the alternate idea of what the bill is about. It's less about the ability to pirate, and more about controlling the content we consume by controlling the websites that provide it. Like one of the videos above, they want to get back to an age when they didn't have the competition of something like the Internet, they want us to watch that television show they approve, that gives them money, rather then that guy on youtube who does funny Star Wars spoofs and gives them nothing. It's a war for our time and attention.

I have not been so angry and scared about my government since the Patriot Act, and this one even hits a little closer to home as I am a child of the web and technology. It will destroy some of my hobbies too. I am doing my best to spread this around locally, but the more and more I bring it to peoples attention, the more and more I realize how shallow and stupid people can be about politics. Too many people have taken what we have for granted and don't realize what will happen if we give the media companies the inch they want.

Jan 19, 2012#188

@Li3n

Dude, google has enough money to fight attempts at bringing them down... the real sufferers are the site that don't exist yet...

Jan 19, 2012#189

ScytheRexx

Google is simply used as an example of a company that, like I said, worst case scenerio, leaves and loses Americans hundreds of jobs. I thought I was clear that such was a worst case scenario and not a for certain outcome

My heart bleeds for all internet companies and artists, Google is just the best example of a company that also provides thousands of jobs in the tech sector and I wouldn't want them to leave. Let's not split hairs, please.

Jan 19, 2012#190

Krisken

@Li3n said:
Heh:

He argued that while Wikipedia was a valued resource, it would be more noticeable to the world if rights holders were to switch off their content for a day.

"Think what you would lose.

"If you walked around the streets of America or Britain with no creative content available to you, because rights holders had decided to shut up shop, you would be deprived of the BBC, cinemas, radio, bookstores and so on.

Wow, that's a horrendously stupid argument. Like others wouldn't take their place? Like we haven't seen people who are not accepted by the entrenched system break out using the internet itself?

Maybe it is time to get their asses out of the last century.

Jan 19, 2012#191

ScytheRexx

Megaupload, one of the biggest sites for uploading and filesharing, has been killed by Federal prosecutors.

Jan 19, 2012#192

Krisken

See, and that's how piracy should be targeted (though the claim of $500 million in damages is a little silly).

Jan 19, 2012#193

Covar

Wondered what took so long.

On the plus side this can be good for the fight against SOPA and PIPA. MegaUpload is pretty much the textbook example site of the reasony why we supposedly need these bills. Because if we don't get SOPA and PIPA passed how will we ever be able to stop these blatant pirate sites being hosted overseas.

Jan 19, 2012#194

ScytheRexx

Megaupload was a great website for legitimate uploads, and was used by many for more then uploading pirated content. I used it myself to download modification files and other items that were made by people, no different then hundreds of other sites like Mediafire, fileshare, etc... Shutting them down is not a way to stop piracy, but it has just deleted countless amounts of legitimate files too. I hope no one used it as an online backup similar to Dropbox.

What's next? Should I worry about my own content on Mediafire?

Jan 19, 2012#195

Krisken

ScytheRexx said:
Megaupload was a great website for legitimate uploads, and was used by many for more then uploading pirated content. I used it myself to download modification files and other items that were made by people, no different then hundreds of other sites like Mediafire, fileshare, etc... Shutting them down is not a way to stop piracy, but it has just deleted countless amounts of legitimate files too. I hope no one used it as an online backup similar to Dropbox.

What's next? Should I worry about my own content on Mediafire?

In a word: YES.

Jan 19, 2012#196

ScytheRexx

Krisken said:
In a word: YES.

So I guess we shall never be able to utilize another upload service again? Rapidshare, Dropbox, Fileserve, Depositfiles, all going to be taken down. Won't stop there though, might as well stop the revolutionary "Cloud" services, to much room for people to send all that music they have on the server and download it onto another computer somewhere illegally.

Megaupload was not The Pirate Bay, having them get shut down was not the path to stop piracy, and will only hurt those use these services for distribution of legitimate content, myself included.

Jan 19, 2012#197

@Li3n

Covar said:
Wondered what took so long.

On the plus side this can be good for the fight against SOPA and PIPA. MegaUpload is pretty much the textbook example site of the reasony why we supposedly need these bills. Because if we don't get SOPA and PIPA passed how will we ever be able to stop these blatant pirate sites being hosted overseas.

No, see, the fact that it took this long is what SOPA is about....

Under it they'd just shut it down and the site owners would have to prove they didn't do anything wrong, instead of the cops having to prove they did...

Jan 19, 2012#198

PatrThom

They're just supposed to be "The Example."

--Patrick

Jan 19, 2012#199

ScytheRexx

@Li3n said:
Under it they'd just shut it down and the site owners would have to prove they didn't do anything wrong, instead of the cops having to prove they did...

One point I will make is that if it was legally found that Megaupload was promoting the infringement of copyright (and I would love to see those records) I would be all for this occurring, as long as it does not bleed over to other legitimate file sharing services. My biggest issue nagging at the back of my head, is the fact this was brought on by Universal, who just recently had their ego bruised by Megaupload and Google, and so I having a feeling that shenanigans were pulled.

PatrThom said:
They're just supposed to be "The Example."

For who? This is not going to change the strategies of places like The Pirate Bay or Isohunt. At most it will make places like Medafire a bit more hot on the delete button when someone puts in a claim, but I worry some of these companies might just not put in claims anymore, they will just start throwing the lawyers because they know "Hey, it actually works!"

Jan 19, 2012#200

Krisken

ScytheRexx said:
So I guess we shall never be able to utilize another upload service again? Rapidshare, Dropbox, Fileserve, Depositfiles, all going to be taken down. Won't stop there though, might as well stop the revolutionary "Cloud" services, to much room for people to send all that music they have on the server and download it onto another computer somewhere illegally.

Megaupload was not The Pirate Bay, having them get shut down was not the path to stop piracy, and will only hurt those use these services for distribution of legitimate content, myself included.

I guess those services need to find a way to prevent their sites from being used for piracy?

Jan 19, 2012#201

GasBandit

I don't believe for a second they didn't pull that $500 million figure out of their ass.
Added at: 15:51

Krisken said:
I guess those services need to find a way to prevent their sites from being used for piracy?

Isn't that kind of like a kitchen knife manufacturer being expected to find a way to prevent their knives from being used for murder?

Jan 19, 2012#202

figmentPez

Krisken said:
I guess those services need to find a way to prevent their sites from being used for piracy?

I don't see how that's a reasonably possible goal. Now it may be possible that MegaUpload was not doing enough to reduce piracy, but there's no possible way to prevent a site with such broad application from being used for piracy at all. Expecting any sort of internet service that transmits data to stop all piracy is ludicrous and should not be expected of ISPs, file hosting sites, message boards or any other service. Reasonable cooperation with legal authorities and copyright holders when there is known piracy should be expected, but not some magic ability to stop all piracy.

Jan 19, 2012#203

strawman

Krisken said:
I guess those services need to find a way to prevent their sites from being used for piracy?

Phone companies are not responsible if their users conduct illegal activities using their services.

We already have law, primarily the DMCA, which grants ISPs a waiver of liability for copyright infringement conducted by third parties on their networks.

Why is it that phone companies are permitted to make money from people who conduct illegal activities using their services without liability, but you suggest that internet companies should be held liable for actions of third parties?

Jan 19, 2012#204

ScytheRexx

Krisken said:
I guess those services need to find a way to prevent their sites from being used for piracy?

They do (or at least try), if you utilize any of the services you will notice many of them, including Megaupload, would delete files deemed in violation of copyright when the specific file was brought to their attention by the copyright owner. The thing was, much for the same reasons Google says they would have to shut down Youtube if SOPA and PIPA were passed into law, most of them can't monitor every file, and most users are not exactly going to report that someone has a copy of "PhtoSPcs3" somewhere in a service with possibly millions of files or more.

Yes, the copyright holder can't be expected to do that either. Really, outside of something even more draconian then SOPA/PIPA, it will never be stopped. Whether you believe the companies that provide the services should do a harder job policing, or the copyright holders should work harder to adapting to changing systems and markets, is up to the individual. Personally, I lean on the latter.

Jan 19, 2012#205

Hailey Knight

ScytheRexx said:
I am starting to lean more on the alternate idea of what the bill is about. It's less about the ability to pirate, and more about controlling the content we consume by controlling the websites that provide it. Like one of the videos above, they want to get back to an age when they didn't have the competition of something like the Internet, they want us to watch that television show they approve, that gives them money, rather then that guy on youtube who does funny Star Wars spoofs and gives them nothing. It's a war for our time and attention.

That is exactly what this is about.

If a big company can cry "piracy!", even on a site that's doing no such thing, down goes that site for the duration of legal proceedings. MPAA and RIAA can tie anything up in courts for years with the money they have, enough to kill most sites with creative content. They don't like bands and artists releasing their music directly to the populace, they don't like people skipping publishers to make books, they don't like movies being produced by guys like Nostalgia Critic, on their own without guild fees, producer oversight, et cetera.

They can't stop it, of course--in the long run, they'll either evolve or die. But in the meantime, they can cling to the past and put up roadblocks like SOPA and PIPA to delay the inevitable, and destroy the up and coming by doing so.

Jan 19, 2012#206

Krisken

Wow, I walked into a shit storm I guess. I'm just spitballing ideas, guys. I think illegal piracy does need to be stemmed somehow, but I'll be honest that I don't know how that can be accomplished.
Added at: 16:31

ScytheRexx said:
I am starting to lean more on the alternate idea of what the bill is about. It's less about the ability to pirate, and more about controlling the content we consume by controlling the websites that provide it.

Yes. Yes yes yes.

Jan 19, 2012#207

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I think illegal piracy does need to be stemmed somehow, but I'll be honest that I don't know how that can be accomplished.

Really, in an age where everything has pretty much evolved to the level of basically manipulating the intangible, I don't think I see how that can be done effectively either, without infringing on legitimate practice. But there are certainly ways to cause a reduction in the rate that things get pirated: you update your business model to embrace the new techology and methods.

TV shows for instance - I've stopped torrenting south park. Why? Because southparkstudios.com streams (almost) every episode on demand. I don't much care for the ads - I wish there was some kind of micropayments-made-easy solution that would eliminate the need for advertising. Maybe made secure with some sort of hardware USB dongle. I dunno, I'm just spitballing now too.

Jan 19, 2012#208

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
TV shows for instance - I've stopped torrenting south park. Why? Because southparkstudios.com streams (almost) every episode on demand. I don't much care for the ads - I wish there was some kind of micropayments-made-easy solution that would eliminate the need for advertising. Maybe made secure with some sort of hardware USB dongle. I dunno, I'm just spitballing now too.

Jan 19, 2012#209

ThatNickGuy

The problem is pirating isn't going to go away. Someone (or a group of someones) will always figure a way around it. They found ways around copy protection on old disc-based video games. Music downloading didn't go away when Napster was taken down. And it won't go away when PirateBay is inevitably taken down.

It's sort of like when the Xbox 360 was first announced. I don't have the source, but I remember someone at Microsoft saying that the system was unhackable. From hearing that alone, I could hear the sounds of thousands of hackers rubbing their hands together in anticipation to prove him wrong.

Jan 19, 2012#210

Krisken

"Crime won't go away, so what is the point of doing anything about it?" is all I read there.

Jan 19, 2012#211

GasBandit

Krisken said:
"Crime won't go away, so what is the point of doing anything about it?" is all I read there.

Not necessarily on target there... it's more like, "no matter how hard we come down on underage drinking, it never seems to stop." Then you look at nations such as germany, which don't criminalize minors having alcohol, you find that while there is still kids drinking, it's actually less than in the US.

A crime isn't a crime isn't a crime... when the crime has to deal with, as I said, basically intangible goods/services, it all starts to get a bit twilight zone and you can't just use the same method you use to stop things like murder or arson.

Jan 19, 2012#212

Krisken

I'm just a little surprised that people are saying that movies/music/games produced by people who put time and money into shouldn't be protected. I guess I don't get it.

Jan 19, 2012#213

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I'm just a little surprised that people are saying that movies/music/games produced by people who put time and money into shouldn't be protected. I guess I don't get it.

It's not a matter of shouldn't, it's a matter of literally can't - not with punitive measures and inconvenience. As I alluded, the new silver bullet against piracy is convenience (and a realistic price point).

And this is nothing. As china comes more and more onto the national cyberstage, there's going to be another huge realignment along what can be expected for virtual goods to cost (and let's face it - just about every form of entertainment these days constitutes virtual goods). After all, before TF2 went free to play, there was Final Combat ... the most blatant ripoff (of TF2 and battlefield heroes) since Matt Groening put Arnold Schwartzenegger on the simpsons and called him Ranier Wolfcastle - only it's not parody and it sure as hell isn't fair use... but what could valve/EA do about it? Literally nothing - the Chinese openly scoff at western copyrights and refuse to enforce them.

The fact of the matter is, a dramatic shift in the economics of bringing a product to market is upon us all... and it is seizmic in proportions. The current purveyors of content (not creators, but distributors mind you) are dinosaurs trying to make comets illegal. Adaptation or extinction are the only two real choices.

Jan 19, 2012#214

strawman

When the printing press came around, the same thing happened - people who created works complained that the printing press made it too easy for others to copy and sell their work without paying the creator.

They created copyright laws that protected them, and they can GO TO COURT and get them to stop distribution. Are book publisher complaining right now? No - they are taking people to court. The Harry Potter books resulted in thousands of lawsuits. The creator of that series was able to protect her art. She didn't scream and cry about how we need MORE laws to make it easier for her to protect her content - the existing laws are sufficient.

Right now we have something FAR easier than a lawsuit for online content. The DMCA allows a copyright owner to CLAIM infringement, and the ISP or service must remove it immediately without a lawsuit, without "innocent until proven guilty" or anything - it's trivial for a copyright holder to stop distribution online.

Why do they need more protections? The internet is a worldwide, superfast, instant-copy printing press - but it's just a printing press, and the new laws created just for the internet account for the speed and quantity of distribution that the internet enables more than the printing press.

The VCR allowed people to make copies and congress affirmed then, as they should now, that the tools that allow copyright infringement, but are not used solely for infringement, should not be limited.

We have copyright law. We have courts. We have the over-reaching DMCA. Now they want to force OTHER people to be their police. They are trying to make it the job of other people to protect their copyright.

Copyright is a priveledge. It's not free. It's not a public or government funded program. Copyright holders have to go to some - sometimes extensive - effort to protect themselves, but the law should not make it our job to protect their works. It should not make it Google's job to protect their works.

SOPA and PIPA go too far.

Jan 19, 2012#215

figmentPez

Krisken said:
I'm just a little surprised that people are saying that movies/music/games produced by people who put time and money into shouldn't be protected. I guess I don't get it.

They should be protected. However, expecting internet services to either have zero copyright-infringement or be shut down is a good way to harm artists and creativity, not help them. Keep in mind that many independent musical acts rely on stuff like MegaUpload, BitTorrent and other file sharing methods to get their material out to fans.

The way to protect artists is to better define what rights they have, and what rights consumers have. Not to make the punishments harsher, or to give greater power to large media corporations. Just look at how many creators of music, games, video and other media have come out to say that SOPA and PIPA are a threat to their art. That's not just creators whose work might be directly shut-down, that includes indie game developers who often see a higher percentage of players pirating their games than major publishers do.

The more power is stripped away from consumers in being able to enjoy the media they want, the more they're going to rebel by infringing. If you want the public to respect copyright, then they'll have to be shown respect in return. Foster some goodwill. The market has shown time and time again that people will eagerly pay when it's easy and gets them hassle-free results, and they also are willing to give credit where credit is due. People like to be fans. Start setting up the system to allow them to be the fans they want to be.

GasBandit said:
Maybe made secure with some sort of hardware USB dongle. I dunno, I'm just spitballing now too.

Why should it need a USB dongle? The material is already out there being pirated. Ripping from physical media is easy and the media is sold in stores. Steaming media is a lot easier to control than either of those. If you have to log-in and you don't have a local file to keep, then there's really no need for anything else. Netflix streams without a dongle, Amazon streams movies without a dongle, etc. etc.

Jan 19, 2012#216

ScytheRexx

Krisken said:
I'm just a little surprised that people are saying that movies/music/games produced by people who put time and money into shouldn't be protected. I guess I don't get it.

No one is saying they shouldn't have some protections, but frankly, there are only really two things in the long run they can protect. The ability to claim the item in question as their own creative works, and the ability to then sell those items in the market. No one should be able to claim they sang a Kanye West song, and then sell it on ebay without ever buying it themselves. There have always been great protections for those things I just mentioned, the likelihood of me selling Photoshop in the US is nearly non-existent outside of maybe trying to sell off some old CDs I bought, and I surely can't claim I am the director of Thor.

Here is the biggest rub. "Piracy" itself and the actual, real consequence of it have always been negligible. It's usually smoke.

Let me try to explain it the best I can, let us say we have five hundred people living in a small town. A new game has just come out for $60 called Super Death Kill Squad (SDKS). Now 250 of the people are "OMG the new game I must have it yes!" and go out, throwing all the money down on the game, or the collectors, or such and such, without question. The other 250 are pretty much just "Meh, looks stupid" and lets for arguement, say they instead pirated it.

The issue here is that the company that published SDKS see that as 250 sales that would have happened should piracy have not existed, that to them is money lost. The issue, is that many of those people had no intention to purchase it, and the piracy was more because "Hey, it's free, maybe I can give it a try".

Now moving further, lets say that after playing the game, 150 of them decided "You know, SDKS is actually pretty fun, but I sure would like an easier time getting it later and have updates, I guess I can put down some money on it for that". That is 150 sales you had that, very likely, you never would have had at all because they never would have tried it. Demos these days never ever give enough of a taste of the real game, only a tutorial half the time, and that is not interesting.

I will be honest here, I am one of these people. I have little money, and so I have to be very picky about my games. I don't buy console games nearly ever because outside of rental fees, I have no way to easily try a game before I decide it sucks or not. When Fallout 3 came out, I was unsure if the game was going to live up to what I wanted it to be, so I downloaded it, and played it like crazy. I loved the game so much that I bought it, and it's right now sitting as one of the few games marked as a favorite on Steam. I have done this a lot with games.

If a company, whether gaming, music, movies, etc... gain my trust through quality product (Example, Blizzard and Valve) I will buy the Collectors Edition on day one, because I trust them and know they will give me an experience. You can't get that everywhere though.

Again, it comes down to the men in suits seeing numbers next to numbers, and assuming that because numbers over here are people that got the game free, that they would automatically be numbers on the other side should they have not gotten it free. It's not that simple, it's NEVER been that simple, and they know it, considering even with the piracy demon hanging over them, they still record thriving, record profits every year.

P.S. If copyright holders can find out some magical way to remove piracy, I will be all for it, as long as they don't destroy what makes the internet great in order to do it. As a secondary consequence, I would likely not purchase as much games as I used to, but that would be on me.

Jan 19, 2012#217

figmentPez

Let's also consider forms of copyright infringment that aren't straight-up piracy. For instance "Let's Play" videos on Youtube. Most game companies look the other way, but technically these can be considered copyright infringement (and there's really no way to know if they could ever be ruled "fair use" without it actually going to trial, as far as I know). I'm about to buy Mass Effect because of a Let's Play I watched. I knew of the series for years, but I'd never given it any consideration despite all the coverage, until I saw someone actually playing the game.

However, game companies can have these videos shut-down whenever they want, and some Let's Players won't/can't cover certain games because of that. There's no easy way to get legal permission to create a Let's Play, that I know of. At the same time, most game companies want these Let's Plays created, because it increases demand for their games. However, it's unlikely they want to deal with all the added work it would take to formally approve/deny all the requests they'd get if such a system were in place. So the result is that most times they turn a blind eye, until they don't and unwitting Let's Players get banned from their Youtube account or streaming service because they covered a game that has an over-protective publisher/developer.

Let's say there is a file sharing site like MegaUpload, but they somehow manage to only share Let's Play videos. These are technically copyright infringement, with a very few exceptions where there is written permission. Should that site get taken down completely the first time any publisher complains, even if dozens of others have given unoffical approval becuase they know it helps with sales and actually improves the value of their copyright? Should the service be required to research each and every upload to know what game is being played, and take down all the videos that aren't legal, even if the publisher has no objections? That's one of the problems with the current system, there's a lot of looking-the-other-way because what should be, and generally is considered to be, "fair use" is not what is legally protected as such.

Consumers are stuck in a very dfficult position with a lot of these laws. It's perfectly legal to make copies of the DVD you own to watch on a portable device, that's fair use as judges have ruled in the past. However, all software capable of doing so to an encrypted DVD is illegal becuase of the DMCA. So if you can get your DVD copied to your portal device without using any software, you're golden! All this despite the fact that the DMCA explicitly says it won't infringe on fair use. The system is broken.

There's so much uncertainty about the issue of copyright that it becomes a guessing game for the average person to try and figure out what they're allowed to do and what they aren't. Is it any wonder most people are more than a little confused?

Jan 19, 2012#218

ScytheRexx

More information about the MegaUpload takedown.

I admit, if the accusations are true about them e-mailing each other in support of piracy and laundering money, then I totally agree the people involved need to get put on trial. However, I still do not agree with the action of taking down the entire website and services. There were people using the service for legitimate usage, and having them suffer over this is not something that should be happening. It needs to be handed off to those that were not found to be part of this "upper ring" of corruption, like many other companies would.

Though, I admit, the cynic in my find the allegations to be almost to silly to be real. "The megaupload conspiracy", "cars with plates that say STONED and GUILTY", "the megaupload imperium", it sounds like a cartoon.

Jan 19, 2012#219

strawman

Megauploads was charging people to download information (although you could get it free, they had fees for getting it fast). They weren't charging people to upload stuff, or charging people for space.

Even though some of their content was legal in every way, people wouldn't pay as much as they were asking for material that wasn't hard or expensive to get via normal channels - generally copyright material. They were not only profiting off of copyright material, but they knew it and were tuning their system to make it easier for users to upload copyrighted material - and even "pay" users who's uploads became popular in various ways (free subscriptions, etc).

They weren't making $110 million off open source and creative commons material.

Jan 19, 2012#220

Krisken

I'm getting the feeling people think I support SOPA/PIPA. That's not it at all. I agree it goes way, way too far (and said so on my blog site

). I'm just ok with minor changes that don't destroy the internet as we know it.

I find the media companies to be money grubbing assholes, too, people.

Jan 19, 2012#221

Shegokigo

Where's that pie chart that shows how the actual artists get something like $23 for every $1000 they actually make?

Jan 20, 2012#222

@li3n...

Well look at that: http://109.236.83.66/

Jan 20, 2012#223

Shegokigo

I'm so glad the government knows just how to stop piracy! They're so effective!

Jan 20, 2012#224

@Li3n

And while we're at it:

According to the report, the majority of users do not even understand that they are illegally using software - 60 percent think that purchasing a single license for a program and installing it on multiple computers is legal at home and 47 percent think it is legal at work.

So whenever they cite piracy for software they include that... no wonder the % are so high...

I'd like to see them actually go after people that install software at home on more then one computer en mass and the media to cover that... lets see what the average consumer says about copyright laws then.

Jan 20, 2012#225

GasBandit

figmentPez said:
Why should it need a USB dongle? The material is already out there being pirated. Ripping from physical media is easy and the media is sold in stores. Steaming media is a lot easier to control than either of those. If you have to log-in and you don't have a local file to keep, then there's really no need for anything else. Netflix streams without a dongle, Amazon streams movies without a dongle, etc. etc.

I was talking about a vague idea for buying things quickly and conveniently online, like streaming an episode of South Park. The USB dongle is for MY security. A hardware key for my microtransaction wallet or whatever. Kind of like blizzard's battle.net authenticator.

Jan 20, 2012#226

ScytheRexx

Looks like the internet has won the first battle.

PIPA Vote Postponed

SOPA Postponed

Have to stay vigilant though, because you never know if they will attempt to sneak it through later when the coverage starts to fade.

Jan 20, 2012#227

Espy

I just hope the government can finally get their hands on those evil VCR makers who allow any user to freely violate copyright. VCR's: Evilest of Evil.

Jan 20, 2012#228

ScytheRexx

This stuff keeps getting more and more crazy.

Redditors are putting out a call to have a "Black March", in which everyone that takes part boycotts the purchase of movies, music, games, etc... the entire month of March, hoping to take a enough of a dip out of the entertainment industry that they realize they need to back off. Am curious how successful it will turn out.

Jan 20, 2012#229

Espy

That will never, ever happen. Ever.

Jan 20, 2012#230

strawman

That's like the past "don't buy gas on [date]" campaigns in years past. Very few people will actually reduce their purchases - they will simply shift them around to avoid that date, or in this case month.

For this to work, people will have to commit to not buying anything during that month, and then continue to not buy the things they would have otherwise bought. You have to say, "Movie x came out that month, therefore I will never view it." It's just not going to happen.

Besides, due to the supply chain, they'd have to get millions of people to participate for the distributors to notice, nevermind the studios and publishers, and the people least affected will be the lobbying organizations and industry groups pushing for these stupid laws. They'll see a dip that month, made up by an increase the following month that nearly makes up for the dip.

Jan 20, 2012#231

Hailey Knight

It's only going to hurt the retailers who sell those products, not the companies in charge of them.

Technically I'll be participating only because I can't afford to buy anything at the moment.

Jan 20, 2012#232

DarkAudit

Quotemander Prime said:
It's only going to hurt the retailers who sell those products, not the companies in charge of them.

Technically I'll be participating only because I can't afford to buy anything at the moment.

You seem to be assuming that the "retailers" are some little mom-and-pop operations on Main St., USA. Maybe once upon a time long, long ago and far, far away, but no longer. The Wal-Marts, Targets, Amazons, and FYEs run that side of the street now. They're part of the same conspiracy as the media companies. In some cases they're the ones giving the media companies their marching orders.

They deserve the same kick in the ass as Universal and Sony.

Jan 20, 2012#233

Hailey Knight

DarkAudit said:
You seem to be assuming that the "retailers" are some little mom-and-pop operations on Main St., USA. Maybe once upon a time long, long ago and far, far away, but no longer. The Wal-Marts, Targets, Amazons, and FYEs run that side of the street now. They're part of the same conspiracy as the media companies. In some cases they're the ones giving the media companies their marching orders.

They deserve the same kick in the ass as Universal and Sony.

Little stores still exist in cities and they depend on each dollar like most small businesses.

Aside from that, I don't see enough people doing this to make much of a dent, and even if they did, the companies would just blame it on piracy.

Jan 20, 2012#234

DarkAudit

Quotemander Prime said:
Little stores still exist in cities and they depend on each dollar like most small businesses.

Aside from that, I don't see enough people doing this to make much of a dent, and even if they did, the companies would just blame it on piracy.

Between Morgantown and Clarksburg I couldn't tell you where you could buy a new movie or CD from a store that wasn't part of a chain. Morgantown definitely not. The last independent record store of consequence here closed up shop over a decade ago.

I can see the "why bother?" crowd has made it's voice heard. That's what the media companies are depending on.

Jan 20, 2012#235

Shegokigo

I don't think I've been in a chain store for nearly anything but groceries, living necessities or clothes in over a year.

Jan 20, 2012#236

Jay

Jan 21, 2012#237

DarkAudit

Another angle, thanks to Tiq. Stop buying shit products.

If a game or movie is crap, it's crap. I'm not going to buy it just to keep the indie store afloat.

Jan 21, 2012#238

Bowielee

Really, I think Steam, Vudu, Hulu, and such make a really strong case for the right way to combat piracy. The biggest problem with most anti-piracy measures are that they make the paying customers suffer more than the pirates do. That is just a horrible business model. If you offer a consumer friendly experience, people as a whole will go towards legal means of getting their entertainment.

Another good example are ROMs. I used to pirate tons of roms of classic games simply because there was no feasable way to get those games legally. Now that we have the PSN, WiiWare, etc... I have absolutely no problem paying for those games.

Jan 21, 2012#239

AshburnerX

Bowielee said:
Another good example are ROMs. I used to pirate tons of roms of classic games simply because there was no feasable way to get those games legally. Now that we have the PSN, WiiWare, etc... I have absolutely no problem paying for those games.

... as long as they are reasonably priced, which is something some companies still don't get.

Jan 21, 2012#240

Bowielee

AshburnerX said:
... as long as they are reasonably priced, which is something some companies still don't get.

What get's me is that with movies, they could charge half what they're charging for a physical copy of a DVD/Blu-Ray and still make more of a profit because they don't even need the physcial medium. Basically the RIAA companies are so ignorant as to the nature of electronic medium, it's not even funny. Rather than fight the inevitable, they should be looking at ways to use it to their advantage.

Jan 21, 2012#241

AshburnerX

It's still better than in japan. Games and movies often cost double what they would here, which is one of the reasons they wait so long to bring them over here: people often buy overseas copies of games and movies, because it's still cheaper to buy them from the US or China than it is to buy them in Japan, even accounting for tariffs and shipping.

But then again, this is the country that made it illegal to rent games because people would rent them instead of buying them. You can blame the entire JRPG formula on this fact... they had to make them too long to beat in a single rental period, so they made you grind XP.

Jan 21, 2012#242

Hailey Knight

DarkAudit said:
Another angle, thanks to Tiq. Stop buying shit products.

If a game or movie is crap, it's crap. I'm not going to buy it just to keep the indie store afloat.

I won't argue with that at all.

Jan 21, 2012#243

Bowielee

I would add to that, don't pirate products either. It still shows interest in the game, which defeats the purpose of not buying them as some sort of protest, and in the end just encourages further anti-piracy measures.

Jan 21, 2012#244

Hailey Knight

People need to stop doing that whether they like something or not. I'm sick of people downloading stuff they have no interest in just to have it, sending the message that garbage is more popular than it is.

AshburnerX said:
It's still better than in japan. Games and movies often cost double what they would here, which is one of the reasons they wait so long to bring them over here: people often buy overseas copies of games and movies, because it's still cheaper to buy them from the US or China than it is to buy them in Japan, even accounting for tariffs and shipping.

It irks me that soundtracks for some really great movies and games from Japan cost $50-$60. It feels kind of unfair. But I still don't pirate them, no matter how much I wish I had those mp3s, because I'm not a thief. People need to learn that they don't have to have these things. It's just entertainment.

Jan 21, 2012#245

@Li3n

Quotemander Prime said:
But I still don't pirate them, no matter how much I wish I had those mp3s, because I'm not a thief.

So i take it you obtained Nintendo's permission to use that Charmander image as your avatar then...

Also: Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally-made copies are not stolen goods. - The USA Supreme Court

I find the argument that we shouldn't let artists starve more compelling then "it makes you a thief".

Jan 21, 2012#246

Frankie Williamson

I just watched an interview with Lamar Smith, you God damn Texans need to get rid of that fucking moron.

Jan 21, 2012#247

Hailey Knight

@Li3n said:
So i take it you obtained Nintendo's permission to use that Charmander image as your avatar then...

Also: Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally-made copies are not stolen goods. - The USA Supreme Court

I find the argument that we shouldn't let artists starve more compelling then "it makes you a thief".

The avatar isn't me streaming episodes nor selling the image of Charmander. If I was taking from anyone, it'd be the person who made the image in the first place, whose identity is a mystery to me.

According to that ruling, there'd be no such thing as piracy of mp3s, video games, movies etc, so long as they're in digital form, but that's incorrect. The law hasn't caught up with reality, as is often the case. And it does matter to me that I don't steal from artists, and to take mp3s that would otherwise be granting them royalties (however meager from my individual purchase), it's still stealing.

Jan 21, 2012#248

AshburnerX

The use of Charmander as an avatar falls under Fair Use.

Also, Dowling v. United States makes it perfectly clear that something has to be physically taken for it to be theft. Therefore Piracy is not theft. It IS, however, copyright infringement, which is a civil crime. I'll say this again, because people don't seem to get it: Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft. The two crimes are completely different in practice, purpose, and execution, which is why one is a criminal matter and one is a civil one.

The laws HAVE caught up with this Quotemander. The copyright owners have the means to track offenders and seek reparations, which they often do. They simply choose not to do it on a massive scale because it would be prohibitively expensive to do so and they would ultimately lose more than they would gain. It's a business decision, nothing more.

Jan 21, 2012#249

Hailey Knight

The person distributing is infringing copyright.

If the person downloading isn't stealing, what do you call it?

Jan 21, 2012#250

strawman

Quotemander Prime said:
If the person downloading isn't stealing, what do you call it?

You don't call it anything - it's not illegal. Some may contend that it's immoral, but there are many things that might be immoral and are not illegal.

Right now there are no laws that cover the person downloading or receipt of such goods. Most recent legal cases revolve around the fact that many file distribution services, such as bittorrent, act as distribution services while downloading.

Once you get block one, while you're downloading block two you start transmitting block one to others who are downloading the material.

Thus you are also distributing the copyrighted material while you are still downloading it.

Napster encouraged people to share their material, and so people got caught distributing from their own collection, even though they didn't do it the same way bittorrent does. So if you set your napster to share nothing copyrighted, but downloaded everything you wanted, you were generally not prosecuted.

There have been attempts to introduce laws that make people who receive illegally copied materials liable for copyright infringement, but they don't pass because there are so many cases where one receives such material unknowingly, and you can't always objectively discern intent in such cases. Further, personal copies can always be made for a variety of reasons (back up, time shifting, etc).

Jan 21, 2012#251

@Li3n

AshburnerX said:
The use of Charmander as an avatar falls under Fair Use.

Really, how does using it as an avatar qualify as: "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

Maybe as a parody because of the text, but even then you have to prove fair use yourself: The Supreme Court of the United States described fair use as an affirmative defense in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc..[17] This means that, in litigation on copyright infringement, the defendant bears the burden of raising and proving that his use was "fair" and not an infringement.

Then again there's always Switzerland: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114537-File-sharing-Remains-Legal-In-Switzerland

Quotemander Prime said:
The person distributing is infringing copyright.

If the person downloading isn't stealing, what do you call it?

No, the guy downloading is making an illegal copy... so he's infringing copyright just fine.

You're thinking of a physical copy, where the receiver/buyer isn't making a copy, just being given one... i don't know if there is a word for someone that has bought counterfeit merchandise...
Added at: 16:26

stienman said:
You don't call it anything - it's not illegal. Some may contend that it's immoral, but there are many things that might be immoral and are not illegal.

I'm actually pretty sure it is illegal, as you are making a copy of the file... they mostly went after people that where sharing because it's easier to prove damage, so get big fines etc...

They still send letters to people who where just d/l songs as i recall...

Jan 21, 2012#252

SpecialKO

It is quite illegal (in the US). Just not in the same way as theft.

@Li3n said:
Really, how does using it as an avatar qualify as: "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

It's not exclusive to those uses, which are just examples (hence the use of the word "incuding"). The test for fair use is case-by-case according to those 4 guidelines they have in your link. While I have no idea if there is established case-law around avatars, I suspect that avatar use in general is not a substantial enough use of copyrighted work to effect the potential value of that work.

That, plus if some company sends you a C&D over your avatar, you should probably just switch to a different avatar and save time and money.

Jan 21, 2012#253

Hailey Knight

It's this exact thing (with the avatars) that was part of the SOPA panic. Any site where one member did something like that would have been shut down.

Jan 21, 2012#254

ScytheRexx

I think most people don't actually think websites will be shut down for usage of avatars all over the place.

The issue is people don't want the door open for that to happen someday, even if far fetched.

SOPA gives a lot of control to companies to shut down websites through simply claiming infringement, and if later on through the courts it is learned that such "infringement" was just an avatar that falls under Fair Use, then the damage to the website is already done, and by wording of the law the company that claimed the infringement wouldn't be held accountable and would not be open to a counter-suit.

Lets say Dave suddenly finds out that Google erased him from searches, and then his vendor, who helps handle the store or donations. Dave looks in his e-mail and finds out that someone put in a claim of copyright infringement over the usage of images in related to copyright material.

He would have to then go to court and prove his innocence, at which point the website would be losing traffic and money, not counting the money he would have to put into lawyers. Then, even if he does prove to the judge the files were under Fair Use, he can't go and counter-suit them, so he is in the hole.

That is the problem. Right now the companies have to prove a purposeful infringement is happening here before a judge can order the website be imploded. With SOPA, they can implode the website before it even gets to full trial, and then only through a trial can you get it back.

No one wants that door open, no matter how far fetched in may be for it to come down to that situation.

Jan 21, 2012#255

@Li3n

SpecialKO said:
It's not exclusive to those uses, which are just examples (hence the use of the word "incuding"). The test for fair use is case-by-case according to those 4 guidelines they have in your link. While I have no idea if there is established case-law around avatars, I suspect that avatar use in general is not a substantial enough use of copyrighted work to effect the potential value of that work.

Are you referring to this: including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section

Because you're interpreting the sentence it wrong if you are...

...

But the 1st guideline does include purpose and character, which i guess covers criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research and others...

Hmmm, interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_on_the_Internet

So, i guess the question is, is the purpose of the avatar "transformative"?
Added at: 23:47

ScytheRexx said:
No one wants that door open, no matter how far fetched in may be for it to come down to that situation.

See my link above if you think they wouldn't use it like that... youtube videos that should be protected under fair use get taken down all teh time...

Jan 21, 2012#256

SpecialKO

@Li3n said:
Are you referring to this: including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section

Because you're interpreting the sentence it wrong if you are...

Doh! You are quite right!

So, i guess the question is, is the purpose of the avatar "transformative"?

Going by that case in your link, probably, so long as the intent of the artist was not to create avatars, and the provision of those images in those avatars did not interfere with exclusive rights, and many other things, I guess.

See my link above if you think they wouldn't use it like that... youtube videos that should be protected under fair use get taken down all the time...

To be fair, that's also because Google/Youtube don't feel like fighting it as a default position. Your overall point stands, however. Now way SOPA/PIPA wouldn't be used like that.

Jan 21, 2012#257

Tiq

I wonder how many people will resort to patting themselves on the back and acting like theyve won the war, because SOPA and PIPA have been postponed for the moment. Not that I have anything wrong with celebrating a small victory, but a lot of people online have made a bad habit in the past of treating a small victory as a huge one, and then ignoring the continued struggle completely, while circle jerking each other about how "they did it" Something in my gut is telling me that maybe... just MAYBE this time will be different, that the threat here is so great, people are realising this isn't going to go away. I can't fault the people pushing black march, because it seems to me like what they're trying to do here, is an extremely calculated effort to push people beyond that glass ceiling of self- congratulations they usually hit, after they change their profile pictures in the name of (x), and suddenly think theyve become heroes of the internet. These guys want people to take the next step and realise it's going to take more effort to send a message here... but they know asking people to do so is such a motherfucker of a thing, because lots of people are happy to tell you they support a cause, right up untill supporting that cause means stepping out of their comfort zone.

Maddox made a fantastic point about it, that you should all read. http://maddox.xmission.com/

Jan 21, 2012#258

DarkAudit

I have a Daffy Duck avatar. I don't have anyone's permission to use it.

So fucking what.

Jan 21, 2012#259

Krisken

I don't wanna lose House.

Jan 21, 2012#260

Allen who is Quiet

Krisken said:
I don't wanna lose House.

Oh man, I know what you mean.

Jan 21, 2012#261

Bowielee

Allen who is Quiet said:
Oh man, I know what you mean.

If you lose House, at least you can save Face.

Jan 21, 2012#262

Krisken

Bowielee said:
If you lose House, at least you can save Face.

View attachment 4104

Damn it, Dirk would take him away too!

Jan 21, 2012#263

ScytheRexx

Tiq said:
I wonder how many people will resort to patting themselves on the back and acting like theyve won the war, because SOPA and PIPA have been postponed for the moment. Not that I have anything wrong with celebrating a small victory, but a lot of people online have made a bad habit in the past of treating a small victory as a huge one, and then ignoring the continued struggle completely, while circle jerking each other about how "they did it" Something in my gut is telling me that maybe... just MAYBE this time will be different, that the threat here is so great, people are realising this isn't going to go away.

There are already rumors that they are going to take the legislation written into SOPA and move it into the back end of another bill coming up, one that itself has come under fire for concerns over internet privacy.

Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

Just as a rundown, this bill will require all ISPs to keep detailed records for 1 year of what users are doing on the web, from browsing habits to financial information, in case they are buying stuff of an illegal nature, and then report it to the government if requested. That in itself is pretty scary, but look at who sponsors it, Lamar Smith, the same sponsor as SOPA.

If they do decide to put SOPA on the end of PCIPA, the worry is that few in congress would dare oppose it, worried to be seen as "pro-child porn". There are actually arguments that the bill itself was simply given the name it was to make it difficult to oppose, even though the bill allows the government to look at this information in search of any type of crime.

I am really starting to hate my state representative.

P.S. Made one correction, the time at which ISPs will hold information was changed from 18 months to 1 year in the newest version of the bill. Not much better, but I wanted to be more accurate.

Jan 21, 2012#264

Shegokigo

http://www.megaupload.com/

I dunno if it's been like that since the shut down but if that logo doesn't give everyone here a chill up their back, I dunno what will.

Jan 21, 2012#265

Hailey Knight

Shegokigo said:
http://www.megaupload.com/

I dunno if it's been like that since the shut down but if that logo doesn't give everyone here a chill up their back, I dunno what will.

That could be the face of many sites if SOPA-type legislation goes through.
Added at: 23:22

ScytheRexx said:
There are already rumors that they are going to take the legislation written into SOPA and move it into the back end of another bill coming up, one that itself has come under fire for concerns over internet privacy.

Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

Just as a rundown, this bill will require all ISPs to keep detailed records for 18 months of what users are doing on the web, from browsing habits to financial information, in case they are buying stuff of an illegal nature, and then report it to the government if requested. That in itself is pretty scary, but look at who sponsors it, Lamar Smith, the same sponsor as SOPA.

If they do decide to put SOPA on the end of PCIPA, the worry is that few in congress would dare oppose it, worried to be seen as "pro-child porn". There are actually arguments that the bill itself was simply given the name it was to make it difficult to oppose, even though the bill allows the government to look at this information in search of any type of crime.

I am really starting to hate my state representative.

WHAT THE FUCK.

And this is a common Congress trick, lump on a bunch of shit into other bills so it all goes through or doesn't. He's going to keep doing this until he's voted out, from one bill to the next. And even disregarding that, the above bill shouldn't go through due to privacy concerns and the fact that the government should not have that kind of detailed information on every internet user in the United States.

Jan 21, 2012#266

Bowielee

Quotemander Prime said:
That could be the face of many sites if SOPA-type legislation goes through.
Added at: 23:22

WHAT THE FUCK.

And this is a common Congress trick, lump on a bunch of shit into other bills so it all goes through or doesn't. He's going to keep doing this until he's voted out, from one bill to the next. And even disregarding that, the above bill shouldn't go through due to privacy concerns and the fact that the government should not have that kind of detailed information on every internet user in the United States.

They weren't supposed to be able to legally wire tap us, either, but look how little happened to the Bush administration when they were caught doing it.

Jan 21, 2012#267

Frankie Williamson

Frankie Williamson said:
I just watched an interview with Lamar Smith, you God damn Texans need to get rid of that fucking moron.

Seriously.

Jan 21, 2012#268

Hailey Knight

I really need to stop reading news on Congressional bills before bedtime. I'm tired of going to sleep in a bad mood.

Jan 22, 2012#269

Tiq

http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/orwko/as_of_1_minute_ago_filesonic_another_popular_file/

Another site down.

Jan 22, 2012#270

Krisken

I see it didn't matter if SOPA or PIPA passed.

Jan 22, 2012#271

Hailey Knight

Tiq said:
http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/orwko/as_of_1_minute_ago_filesonic_another_popular_file/

Another site down.

I'm kind of surprised at the intelligence in some of these replies. Comparing to RIAA, MPAA, "Dinosaurs may die, but they don't gotta like it."
And then:
"First they came for megaupload, and I didn't speak out because I didn't stream pirated tv.
Then they came for filesonic, and I didn't speak out because I didn't download cracked games.
Then they came for rapidshare, and I didn't speak out because I didn't listen to leaked studio albums.
Then they came for the torrents, and I didn't speak out because I didn't have time to seed anymore.
Then they came for my personal data and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Now this isn't exactly the way it'd work, but the idea is the truth--this is more than about piracy, but about what goes on with people personally on the internet.

Jan 22, 2012#272

ScytheRexx

Just to be clear, Filesonic was not taken down by the government. They altered services to be a "personal online file storage", which means anything you upload, only you can access. They likely saw what happened to Megaupload, and decided to be safe rather then sorry, thus the change.

Hopefully other file upload websites don't start caving.

Jan 22, 2012#273

Hailey Knight

ScytheRexx said:
Just to be clear, Filesonic was not taken down by the government. They altered services to be a "personal online file storage", which means anything you upload, only you can access. They likely saw what happened to Megaupload, and decided to be safe rather then sorry, thus the change.

Hopefully other file upload websites don't start caving.

Well, I guess I can't fault them there. That's their decision in reaction to what's happened so far.

And it is different from SOPA/PIPA passing, because instead of sites getting shut down, people are being arrested... um...

Jan 22, 2012#274

PatrThom

I've had a few points in my life where I've felt desperate. This relentless assault to try and get crappy legislation passed before impending industry flameout makes me wonder how many rotten eggs are going to get through that are going to take years to straighten out even after they lose relevance.

--Patrick

Jan 22, 2012#275

Shegokigo

Filesonic... this one hurt as much as Megaupload....

Jan 22, 2012#276

AshburnerX

Shegokigo said:
Filesonic... this one hurt as much as Megaupload....

Agreed. I suspect it's going to be Depositfiles or Hotfile next.

Jan 23, 2012#277

@Li3n

SpecialKO said:
Going by that case in your link, probably, so long as the intent of the artist was not to create avatars, and the provision of those images in those avatars did not interfere with exclusive rights, and many other things, I guess.

They'd also probably have to show avatars are a different use then just hosting an infringing picture...

I tihnk Quotemander has a better chance citing parody...

Jan 23, 2012#278

Hailey Knight

So, I guess we're not allowed to have files online unless we pay for it ourselves from a hosting service?

Also, better wording than I had last night (derp):
They're not just after piracy, but your privacy.

Jan 23, 2012#279

@Li3n

Quotemander Prime said:
They're not just after piracy, but your privacy.

Well of course not, piracy is already illegal, making it more so ain't gonna change the fact that they can't realistically enforce it...

Jan 23, 2012#280

Tiq

I hate to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but we may all have something much worse coming on the horizon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement#Requests_for_disclosure

Jan 23, 2012#281

ScytheRexx

At the very least it looks like my favorite filesharing site is going to stay as it is.

http://geeks.thedailywh.at/2012/01/23/mediafire-comments-on-megaupload-situation-of-the-day/

Jan 23, 2012#282

GasBandit

I dare say my avatar is most likely violating copyright law. From what I learned in the 90s when mattel started shutting down little girls' websites they made to talk about how much they loved barbie, "fair use" is a teensy tiny hole that barely ever actually covers anything. I'm pretty sure our avatars, in the strictest interpretation, are not fair use. The argument could be made that we damage their respective brands by associating their products/likenesses with our own blah blah blah etc.

Jan 23, 2012#283

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
I dare say my avatar is most likely violating copyright law. From what I learned in the 90s when mattel started shutting down little girls' websites they made to talk about how much they loved barbie, "fair use" is a teensy tiny hole that barely ever actually covers anything.

To be fair, little girls probably don't have money for good lawyers, and fair use is an affirmative defence, meaning that you have to prove it yourself in court if the other side proves you're using their copyright.

And i wonder how my avatar would play out... i mean the guy that made it obviously didn't have the rights to Krang...

Jan 23, 2012#284

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
To be fair, little girls probably don't have money for good lawyers, and fair use is an affirmative defence, meaning that you have to prove it yourself in court if the other side proves you're using their copyright.

And i wonder how my avatar would play out... i mean the guy that made it obviously didn't have the rights to Krang...

And even if he did, you didn't procure the rights to display it from either him or the original IP owner.

Jan 23, 2012#285

jwhouk

PatrThom said:
I've had a few points in my life where I've felt desperate. This relentless assault to try and get crappy legislation passed before impending industry flameout makes me wonder how many rotten eggs are going to get through that are going to take years to straighten out even after they lose relevance.

--Patrick

Well, it took only one shoehorned act of my state legislature to make my life a living hell for (at the least) next two years.

Jan 23, 2012#286

Ravenpoe

Ha! I'd like to see them come after MY avatar!

...

......

What do you mean I don't own the right to beards? INJUSTICE!

Jan 23, 2012#287

Hailey Knight

Bill Maher is an idiot.

In other news, grass grows.

Jan 23, 2012#288

Krisken

It helps that Buddy Roemer read the bill. Then again, he's not the tool Mahar is.

Jan 24, 2012#289

@Li3n

Looks like Facebook has a more relevant to itself law to fight in Europe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16677370

A new law promising internet users the "right to be forgotten" will be proposed by the European Commission on Wednesday.
It says people will be able to ask for data about them to be deleted and firms will have to comply unless there are "legitimate" grounds to retain it.

Well that would certainly neuter a few of the more retarded laws the industry wants...

GasBandit said:
And even if he did, you didn't procure the rights to display it from either him or the original IP owner.

Yeah, what i was wondering is what the status of someone that made a copy of a work that was already infringing copyright was...

Like i'm pretty sure i'm not going to jail if i steal a pair of Pumma's...

Jan 24, 2012#290

@Li3n

Ok, anyone else finds this to make frightening amounts of sense: https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq

Jan 24, 2012#291

Hailey Knight

@Li3n said:
Ok, anyone else finds this to make frightening amounts of sense: https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq

Sounds like the musical version of what Amazon is doing for writers. I would've totally supported that. That's really creepy.

Jan 24, 2012#292

@Li3n

Quotemander Prime said:
Sounds like the musical version of what Amazon is doing for writers. I would've totally supported that. That's really creepy.

Well, as a wise man once said, there's nothing more powerful then an idea who's time has come...

DIE HOLLYWOOD, DIE...

Jan 24, 2012#293

strawman

It's too bad they did it backwards.

1. Infringe copyright
2. Make money off #1 (the article said as much, "We've tried this model and it works!")
3. Discover that you're likely to get caught.
4. Think of ways to get industry approval ("Hey you want a piece of this pie?") while making money hand over fist.

Amazon is at least starting out by recognizing copyright and enforcing it.

Besides, the music industry already has Apple, Amazon, and others in the selling business, and youtube and others in the "pay for play" business.

They don't need a piece of megaupload's pie - it's much more profitable long term to shut them down, force customers into existing channels, and use them as an example for the other sharing sites.

Jan 24, 2012#294

Hailey Knight

The idea is that artists outside the general industry could make money and get big off this through exposure. As someone earlier in the thread said, we consumers get to choose what we want to listen to, rather than the records industry deciding "this is popular now" and promoting whatever it is, blasting it over everything with artificially constructed success, or an image.

Jan 24, 2012#295

AshburnerX

It's true... things like "hit charts" are basically worthless these days because they don't take into account digital sales and can't take piracy into account. It's basically impossible to track how popular music is outside of things that involve direct fan involvement... which is why manufactured singers are all but the norm these days.

Jan 24, 2012#296

ScytheRexx

It does seem a bit more then a coincidence that the authorities jumped to action the minute Megabox.com was getting close to release. Does not stop the fact that the guys at Megaupload did some pretty illegal things, but simply shows that media companies only care enough to bring down a hammer when they know it will lead to powerful competition.

Jan 24, 2012#297

Hailey Knight

And odds are by the time someone else could get a similar project going, the RIAA will have their own version happening, except the artists will get much, much less.

Fuckers.

Jan 24, 2012#298

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
Yeah, what i was wondering is what the status of someone that made a copy of a work that was already infringing copyright was...

Like i'm pretty sure i'm not going to jail if i steal a pair of Pumma's...

Piracy isn't theft, but violating copyright by making unauthorized copies (even if it's a copy of a copy) is still illegal. Otherwise, only the very first seeder of any given torrent would be liable... everybody else just made a copy of a copy.

Jan 24, 2012#299

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Piracy isn't theft, but violating copyright by making unauthorized copies (even if it's a copy of a copy) is still illegal. Otherwise, only the very first seeder of any given torrent would be liable... everybody else just made a copy of a copy.

Yeah, but the image itself isn't a copy, it just uses a protected character... like if i copy Family Guy and they sue meanwhile at the same time the Simpson guys sue them and win... what happens to my case? And if the Simpson guys sue me can my defence say i thought i was copying another show?

And the theft thing was more about actually stealing a bootleg shoe, had little to do with copyright being theft.

Jan 24, 2012#300

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
Yeah, but the image itself isn't a copy, it just uses a protected character... like if i copy Family Guy and they sue meanwhile at the same time the Simpson guys sue them and win... what happens to my case? And if the Simpson guys sue me can my defence say i thought i was copying another show?

And the theft thing was more about actually stealing a bootleg shoe, had little to do with copyright being theft.

Oh, so you're saying, what if the Simpsons successfully sued Family Guy for ripping it off, what would happen to everybody who pirated family guy? Am I reading that right?

Jan 24, 2012#301

@li3n...

GasBandit said:
Oh, so you're saying, what if the Simpsons successfully sued Family Guy for ripping it off, what would happen to everybody who pirated family guy? Am I reading that right?

That's about right...

Jan 24, 2012#302

GasBandit

@li3n... said:
That's about right...

Probably would still have to pay damages, some or all of which would go to the original copyright holder.

But your avatar is not like that at all. It's a direct likeness of a copyrighted character, Krang from TMNT. It doesn't matter that someone else drew it in the least. I doubt you would have to pay damages, you'd probably just get a Cease and Desist. If you ignored that, well, it goes downhill from there with fines and court costs. It'd be the same for me.

Jan 25, 2012#303

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Probably would still have to pay damages, some or all of which would go to the original copyright holder.

But your avatar is not like that at all. It's a direct likeness of a copyrighted character, Krang from TMNT. It doesn't matter that someone else drew it in the least. I doubt you would have to pay damages, you'd probably just get a Cease and Desist. If you ignored that, well, it goes downhill from there with fines and court costs. It'd be the same for me.

Ah, the old C&D, forgot about it... i guess after it i couldn't claim in court that i thought it was someone else's art at the time...

But i was thinking more something like if during the Superman vs Captain Marvel trial the guy that wrote Gladiator sued DC and won...

Jan 25, 2012#304

evilmike

A few news items:

Chris Dodd, voice of the MPAA, threatens to withdraw monetary support for politicians who don't support SOPA-like laws.

Chris Dodd said:
Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake," Dodd told Fox News. "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.

This resulted in a petition to the White House to have Dodd investigated for bribery here. While it is unlikely this will actually cause an investigation into Dodd, they have already met the minimum requirement for the White House to issue a statement on the matter. An earlier petition resulted in the statement from the White House which stated grave concerns about the provisions in SOPA/PIPA.

Wil Wheaton posted an interesting response to Dodd here.

Wil Wheaton said:
Not that it matters, and not that I’m some kind of rich mogul, but I’ll say this again: I have lost more money to creative accounting, and American workers have lost more jobs to runaway production, than anything associated with what the MPAA calls piracy. Chris Dodd is lying about piracy costing us jobs. Hollywood’s refusal to adapt to changing times is what’s costing the studios money. That’s it.

Jonathan Coulton also touches on SOPA/PIPA and the Megaupload shutdown in a journal entry here. (Also, in a pithy tweet here.)

Jonathan Coulton said:
Make good stuff, then make it easy for people to buy it. There’s your anti-piracy plan. The big content companies are TERRIBLE at doing both of these things, so it’s no wonder they’re not doing so well in the current environment.

Jan 25, 2012#305

Shegokigo

followed by:

Is riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

Jan 26, 2012#306

@Li3n

So the piracy rate in the US is only 20%: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sof_pir_rat-crime-software-piracy-rate

Oh yeah, i'm sure that if you make software unpiratable all of Armenia will all of a sudden buy everything with all those moneys they don't have...

If this really is about piracy and not just trying to freeze the evolution of the industry then they're wasting their money for nothing...

In other news, looks like Poland is next: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16735219

Jan 26, 2012#307

@Li3n

More "good" news: http://gizmodo.com/5879180/jailbreaking-or-rooting-your-phone-could-become-illegal-again-fight-it

Jan 26, 2012#308

ThatNickGuy

Cripes, at this rate, it's gonna be illegal to breathe in 5 years time.

Jan 26, 2012#309

@Li3n

ThatNickGuy said:
Cripes, at this rate, it's gonna be illegal to breathe in 5 years time.

No, no, no, no... breathing is fine as long as you pay the breathing tax...

Jan 26, 2012#310

ThatNickGuy

Psh. That's it. I'm joining the Occupy Oxygen movement.

Jan 26, 2012#311

ScytheRexx

How is that even possible? Once I own the "product", in this case the phone and the software on said phone, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want to it as long as I am not ripping the software to give to others. Whats next? Making it illegal to change an OS on a pre-fab computer, or modify game resources after purchasing the game?

What is wrong with the world these days...

Jan 26, 2012#312

strawman

ScytheRexx said:
How is that even possible? Once I own the "product", in this case the phone and the software on said phone, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want to it as long as I am not ripping the software to give to others. Whats next? Making it illegal to change an OS on a pre-fab computer, or modify game resources after purchasing the game?

What is wrong with the world these days...

It's one of the fun aspects of the DMCA. It makes it illegal to break DRM measures, and the iPhone's protection counts as DRM. There was a big deal when the first iPhones were starting to be jailbroken and the legal ramifications of the DMCA become more interesting, so they gave specific exceptions that included the iPhone.

Those exceptions are due to expire soon.

Jan 26, 2012#313

SpecialKO

ScytheRexx said:
Whats next? Making it illegal to change an OS on a pre-fab computer, or modify game resources after purchasing the game?

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/23/anno-2070-drm-grudingly-altered-as-little-as-possible/

Heading in that direction, buddy.

Jan 26, 2012#314

GasBandit

What is ACTA? It is a proposed international treaty called the ‘Anti Counterfeit Trade Agreement’, and it is being described as SOPA’s bigger, meaner brother. What exactly ACTA will mean for the intertubes is a subject of debate, but it’s a big deal! It would be a tool for censoring the interwebs from many countries, not just the USA.Here’s a graph illustrating the potential dangers of ACTA

Source: derechoaleer.org
Added at: 14:06
Also -

Jan 26, 2012#315

GasBandit

Photo of the Day: Members of the Polish opposition party Palikot’s Movement held up Guy Fawkes masks inthe Sejm today to protest their government’s recent passage of the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

Jan 26, 2012#316

DarkAudit

@Li3n said:
No, no, no, no... breathing is fine as long as you pay the breathing tax...

Steinman won't pay it.

Jan 26, 2012#317

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
Photo of the Day: Members of the Polish opposition party Palikot’s Movement held up Guy Fawkes masks inthe Sejm today to protest their government’s recent passage of the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

This may be the most awesome thing I've ever seen.

*reads the wiki*

I'd vote for 'em!

Jan 27, 2012#318

PatrThom

And now on top of all the above shenanigans, now we have to worry about Google tracking everything* we do on the Internet starting Mar 1? I'm starting to get really concerned, here.

--Patrick
*Yes, everything.

Jan 27, 2012#319

Tress

There's always not using Google for everything, or not sharing all your info with Google. Revolutionary concepts, I know.

Jan 27, 2012#320

PatrThom

It's...difficult. It's a bit like buying food that doesn't trace back to Monsanto, or that doesn't have gluten in it...certainly do-able, but very difficult. I could swear off Google entirely...but get infestigated* by the Google ads when I visit this site.

--Patrick
*I just made that up.

Jan 27, 2012#321

@Li3n

Tress said:
There's always not using Google for everything, or not sharing all your info with Google. Revolutionary concepts, I know.

Or you know, you can just delete your cookies automatically when you close firefox!

Google's got nothing on me: http://www.google.com/settings/ads/...k0NC_l4fciY8jULnMfCjnZ4YOPzZbAoM1an-QUg&hl=en

Jan 27, 2012#322

@Li3n

Looks like not everyone is on board: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16757142

Yay...

Jan 27, 2012#323

ScytheRexx

The more I read this the more I feel like an idiot. I get the sinking feeling in my stomach that SOPA/PIPA were just a smoke screen to allow ACTA to get farther through without protest, since it basically enacts many of the same policies on a international level, rather then a national one.

Jan 27, 2012#324

GasBandit

ScytheRexx said:
The more I read this the more I feel like an idiot. I get the sinking feeling in my stomach that SOPA/PIPA were just a smoke screen to allow ACTA to get farther through without protest, since it basically enacts many of the same policies on a international level, rather then a national one.

There was a conspiracy keanu meme picture today that said that exactly.

Feb 10, 2012#325

DarkAudit

Here's a novel concept, getting royalties even from pirated content. According to this report, that's exactly what's happening with iTunes Match. Each time an iTunes Match customer plays a track, the artist gets a cut. No matter where it originally came from.

Feb 10, 2012#326

strawman

DarkAudit said:
Here's a novel concept, getting royalties even from pirated content. According to this report, that's exactly what's happening with iTunes Match. Each time an iTunes Match customer plays a track, the artist gets a cut. No matter where it originally came from.

We are already paying such a surcharge for recording media. Right now it's CD-Rs, but they keep pushing bills for all memory and digital storage - so even if you use the CD-R for backup, the recording industry gets a cut as though you were using it for copyrighted music.

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

And, of course, the artists never see a dime - this all goes back into the recording lobby to further their cause. It doesn't do a thing for the artists.

http://www.ittechpages.com/tech/tax-recordable-cds-223.html

Records and radio and TV didn't decimate the live performance industry. Cassette tapes didn't decimate the recording industry. Neither did CD-R, computers, or the internet.

It's not about saving the industry, and it never has been - it's about making as much money off the same properties as possible, money that doesn't go to the artist, but instead to the industry groups and recording studios.

Feb 10, 2012#327

Necronic

All that said, Jazz is the devil's music and it is degrading our youth's morals and subverting our proud culture. We should probably stop it.

Edit: Ok, on topic. Darrel Issa is fighting against this. This confuses and beffudles me. That guy is arguably the single most blatantly corrupt politician in the US.

Edit2: Could someone explain to me what's so bad about the ACTA thing? Its so broad I'm having a hard time understadning the remifications (if any considering that it's an international treaty.)

Feb 10, 2012#328

Dirona

Necronic said:
Could someone explain to me what's so bad about the ACTA thing? Its so broad I'm having a hard time understadning the remifications (if any considering that it's an international treaty.)

In a nutshell:

"ACTA contains new potential obligations for Internet intermediaries, requiring them to police the Internet and their users, which in turn pose significant concerns for citizens’ privacy, freedom of expression, and fair use rights."
"the goal [of ACTA] is to create a new standard of intellectual property enforcement above the current internationally-agreed standards"
it includes: "new legal regimes to "encourage ISPs to cooperate with right holders in the removal of infringing material" criminal measures and increased border search powers"
it "mandate copyright filtering by ISPs" (I think this was removed last May, but I'm not sure)
https://www.eff.org/issues/acta

From the reading that I've done, few details are available. At worst it will (functionally) be SOPA/PIPA on an international scale. In Canada it requires the passing of a couple of other bills before ACTA can take effect, and some of what is contained in that legislation (C-11) is extremely problematic. By extension, ACTA gets pained with the same brush, since C-11 needs to be passed in order for Canada to be in compliance with ACTA (which we signed back in the fall).

Other than that, which I acknowledge isn't much, I got nothin'.

Feb 11, 2012#329

PatrThom

stienman said:
It's not about saving the industry, and it never has been - it's about making as much money off the same properties as possible, money that doesn't go to the artist, but instead to the industry groups and recording studios.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. The entertainment industry (ie, not the entertainers, but the industry itself) ultimately does not care about content. They care about selling you tapes, discs, tickets, rentals, SD cards, or any number of otherwise worthless items (hereafter referred to as "widgets") that happen to have that thing you want to consume encoded onto it somehow. It's no different than designer purses or jeans, the 'label' just serves to sell more stuff. The industry does not make its profit based on which items you purchase, they make it solely based on how many you purchase. Think about it...the cost to manufacture a million widgets containing Serenity is no different than the cost to manufacture a million widgets containing The Wiggles: Hot Potatoes!

Therefore, when the industry tries to decide which properties to protect, which entertainers to sponsor(/hire), which laws to create/support, and what to promote, they choose to lavish their attention on the ones which will encourage people to purchase the greatest total number of widgets. They don't care about niceness, morality, remakes, sequels, rereleases, or critical acclaim...unless that acclaim helps them sell more widgets, of course.

Every time a new widget technology comes along, they lick their lips at the opportunity. The ideal widget is read-only (eg BluRay v. SD card) so that it has no alternate use other than as a delivery vehicle for their content (and therefore hopefully discarded when it goes obsolescent) or transient/ephemeral (eg movie ticket/music subscription) and therefore not replayable (forcing the consumer to pay every time the experience is desired). This is why they hate recordable media so much (especially re-recordable media) and why they fight so hard to make sure you can't get your own unprotected version...because once you divorce the content from the widget, you no longer need the industry and all of its manufacturing facilities.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and give an example of what I'm talking about. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD had a big fight recently and Blu-Ray won thanks to its higher capacity and that it was slightly harder to hack. The sheer capacity of the disc (25/50GB) enabled new widget technologies such as 3D video, multiple camera angles, more audio tracks, and 1080p video...these are the carrots. The managed content, AACS, selective output control (ICT), and the whole 'analog sunset' thing? That was the stick. And there's currently no good alternative for getting primo, hi-def content up onto your display system of choice, so you were pretty much stuck with it.

Well, that was then. Now we have USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt out there, which mean it will finally be practical to watch movies on SDHC since a standard SD card reader will finally be able to get that data into the computer/TV fast enough to display it on the screen (without all the CPU overhead of the slower USB 2.0). And I'm betting SD cards are a whole lot cheaper to manufacture and distribute than Blu-Ray. Sure, they're slightly slower than Blu-Ray (Hi-speed SD can hit about 30MB/s, Blu-Ray starts at 9MB/s but is supposed to eventually hit 32MB/s with a theoretical max of 50MB/s...IF you spin the discs at 10,000 RPM, but that could lead to other problems*). Also, the thing about SDHC? They're recordable and the 16GB ones are almost exactly the same price as current Blu-Ray discs. So you can basically "tape over" them as many times as you want in a format that is about 1/10th the size of Blu-Ray. Really, the only reason the studios aren't moving to SD right now to save money on distribution and manufacture is probably because they know the average consumer isn't going to want to replace their entire collection of movies again so soon. Plus they haven't yet figured out how to hogtie the SD format to prevent so-called 'abuse.'

--Patrick
*Blu-Ray discs are deliberately made more durable than CDs, but once they start to crack, they're just as likely to go.

Feb 11, 2012#330

DarkAudit

stienman said:
We are already paying such a surcharge for recording media. Right now it's CD-Rs, but they keep pushing bills for all memory and digital storage - so even if you use the CD-R for backup, the recording industry gets a cut as though you were using it for copyrighted music.

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

And, of course, the artists never see a dime - this all goes back into the recording lobby to further their cause. It doesn't do a thing for the artists.

http://www.ittechpages.com/tech/tax-recordable-cds-223.html

Records and radio and TV didn't decimate the live performance industry. Cassette tapes didn't decimate the recording industry. Neither did CD-R, computers, or the internet.

It's not about saving the industry, and it never has been - it's about making as much money off the same properties as possible, money that doesn't go to the artist, but instead to the industry groups and recording studios.

What are you smoking? What do CD-Rs have to do with Apple paying royalties to the bands?

Feb 11, 2012#331

PatrThom

DarkAudit said:
What are you smoking? What do CD-Rs have to do with Apple paying royalties to the bands?

Nothing. It's more about how the industry lobbied to get the gv't to assume that all CD-Rs and other recordable media are going to eventually be used for piracy and therefore should have a preemptive fee charged to offset the income lost to that infringement.

--Patrick

Feb 11, 2012#332

strawman

DarkAudit said:
What are you smoking? What do CD-Rs have to do with Apple paying royalties to the bands?

You said earlier, "Here's a novel concept, getting royalties even from pirated content."

It's not a novel concept - it's a bad solution to the problem.

Mar 5, 2012#333

DarkAudit

Day 5 of "Black March". Anyone still remember this was supposed to be a thing?

Mar 5, 2012#334

jwhouk

Other than intermittent issues hitting a few websites, I've seen nothing.

Methinks Anonymous either overplayed its hand, or the guys who were arrested were the head of the beast.

Mar 5, 2012#335

DarkAudit

I think you have your shinies mixed up. Black March was the "don't buy or even download any media for the entire month."

Again I ask, is this still a thing?

Mar 6, 2012#336

Hailey Knight

I'm only participating because I have to--lack of spending money.

Mar 29, 2012#337

Cheesy1

So now the RIAA, MPAA, and the major ISPs are going to introduce the "Six-Strikes" system to crack down on piracy. Copyrights holders just have to file a complaint to the providers, and then you are given a strike. It is then up to you to prove that you did not do what you are accused of within ten days. After six strikes, that's when the bandwidth throttling and lawsuits begin. And the board in charge of handling these complaints is made up entirely of RIAA, MPAA, and ISP members.

None of what's being implemented had public input, and you are guilty until you can prove otherwise. Lovely.

Mar 29, 2012#338

PatrThom

Yep. I've already started trying to research alternate ISPs (that don't suck).

--Patrick

Mar 30, 2012#339

Soliloquy

Could you let me know what you find out? I'd like to not have to deal with this kind of BS.

Mar 30, 2012#340

Hailey Knight

What constitutes piracy? Watching Youtube?

Mar 30, 2012#341

DarkAudit

Is that "anon shuts down the internet March 31" still a thing?

Mar 30, 2012#342

Hailey Knight

Never even heard of it.

Mar 31, 2012#343

PatrThom

Soliloquy said:
Could you let me know what you find out? I'd like to not have to deal with this kind of BS.

So far I've found out that it's really hard to get a straight answer from an ISP as to whether or not they're part of this 'voluntary' program.

Quotemander Prime said:
What constitutes piracy? Watching Youtube?

Since this is a program run by the ISPs and not regulated nor legislated in any way, it pretty much means they can potentially accuse you of 'piracy' whenever they want, and the burden of proof is upon you, not them. And since there is (presently) no government oversight since this is just an 'agreement' between the major ISPs, they can pretty much kick you out of the Internet club if they want to.

They have publicly stated that they will only collude with one another in the most responsible way possible, of course.

--Patrick

Mar 31, 2012#344

LordRendar

DarkAudit said:
Is that "anon shuts down the internet March 31" still a thing?

Is Anon still a thing?

Mar 31, 2012#345

DarkAudit

LordRendar said:
Is Anon still a thing?

Good point.

Mar 31, 2012#346

LordRendar

Phew.I think Anon just got back at me for posting that >.< My PC exploded with Malware alerts.Had to reinstall windows.it's all good now.
Strange cooincidence.

Apr 2, 2012#347

PatrThom

PatrThom said:
Blu-Ray and HD-DVD had a big fight recently and Blu-Ray won thanks to its higher capacity and that it was slightly harder to hack. The sheer capacity of the disc (25/50GB) enabled new widget technologies such as 3D video, multiple camera angles, more audio tracks, and 1080p video...these are the carrots. The managed content, AACS, selective output control (ICT), and the whole 'analog sunset' thing? That was the stick.

...and it looks like Blu-Ray may poke itself in the eye with that stick, or so they think over at Anandtech. People keep breaking the copy protection, so it looks like rather than just give in, the Blu-Ray people are going to layer on more and more DRM, which will a) make it harder to watch, b) break compatibility with players made before 2011, and c) do pretty much nothing to prevent piracy.

PatrThom said:
So far I've found out that it's really hard to get a straight answer from an ISP as to whether or not they're part of this 'voluntary' program.

From the CCI's own (deliberately?) misspelled documentation, the list of participating ISPs is as follows:
AT&T
Verizon
Comcast
Cablevision Systems Co
Time Warner Cable
...and their respective subsidiaries.

--Patrick

Apr 3, 2012#348

Covar

Time to poke the bear and start seeding linux isos.

Apr 6, 2012#349

GasBandit

Good gravy, here we go again.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act now has more than 105 co-sponsors, and some fear the bill could go further than SOPA and PIPA in threatening online privacy. SOPA and PIPA were finally discarded earlier this year after resounding online protest changed the debate, but the same doesn’t yet appear to be the case with CISPA.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation , H.R. 3523 “would let companies spy on users and share private information with the federal government and other companies with near-total immunity from civil and criminal liability. It effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity’ exemption to all existing laws.”

The bill could sneak through Congress quickly once it’s back in session, so be sure to track its progress .

Forums