2 edits | reply to Linklist
Re: Google anti-SOPA/PIPA actions will disappear soon It wouldn't be only their search results that would take a hit by SOPA/PIPA. Youtube, which Google owns, would be effectively wiped out. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by jerseyjoe123:It wouldn't be only their search results that would take a hit by SOPA/PIPA. Youtube, which Google owns, would be effectively wiped out.
YouTube has nothing to worry about. Google made peace with the content providers awhile ago over YouTube submissions that break copyright. They implemented an automated system of removing infringing content that captures the vast majority of infringing submissions.
And SOPA/PIPA, despite the slippery slope arguments by opponents, is NOT designed to block US sites. It is squarely aimed at foreign sites and governments that tolerate/encourage the stealing of US content. The alarmists always want EVERY law gutted that could potentially be abused somehow. But that is true of every law ever passed. So for them we should have no laws, because all laws can be abused. That is an anarchist's position.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
|
|
 rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | What a crock. |
|
| reply to Linklist
This sums it up pretty well:
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LEb_D2SD3k |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:And SOPA/PIPA, despite the slippery slope arguments by opponents, is NOT designed to block US sites. It is squarely aimed at foreign sites and governments that tolerate/encourage the stealing of US content. The alarmists always want EVERY law gutted that could potentially be abused somehow. But that is true of every law ever passed. So for them we should have no laws, because all laws can be abused. That is an anarchist's position.
It is not our government's place to police the Internet, or police foreign governments.
Have you read your signature lately?
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
|
|
 coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
 ·Windstream
| reply to Linklist
quote:
...And SOPA/PIPA, despite the slippery slope arguments by opponents, is NOT designed to block US sites. It is squarely aimed at foreign sites and governments that tolerate/encourage the stealing of US content. The alarmists always want EVERY law gutted that could potentially be abused somehow. But that is true of every law ever passed. So for them we should have no laws, because all laws can be abused. That is an anarchist's position.
Your logic and blind faith are unsupportable. The entertainment industry and big content will abuse the system just as they have the DMCA. Such things like submitting take downs on content they DO NOT OWN, interfering with a legitimate business' advertising because they don't like the company that made the ad, ICE seizing a totally legal site USED BY THE INDUSTRY'S OWN MARKETING DEPARTMENTS and holding the domain hostage for over a year without recourse or explanation, Suing people for clearly fair use scenarios even when they were found NOT TO BE THE ACTUAL RIGHTS HOLDER, etc, etc, etc
And all this WITHOUT SOPA/PIPA being passed. No, the industry does not deserve any new tools until they learn the proper and ethical use of the tools they currently have and also learn how to innovate and deliver the content people want to consume in the formats they want.
We are at a crossroads and if the legacy industry fails to adapt, they will simply cease to exist in time and all this will be moot regardless...
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC |
|
| reply to Linklist
The alarmists always want EVERY law gutted that could potentially be abused somehow. But that is true of every law ever passed. So for them we should have no laws, because all laws can be abused. That is an anarchist's position. |
|
 ArrayListnetbus developerPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | reply to Rob
isn't hypocrisy fun? |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to Rob
said by Rob: Have you read your signature lately?
Not everything can be based on 1 statement.
I like small government. But I am also patriotic and want a military that can defend our country - even if it costs more than I like. I hate thieves(and copyright infringers) and want them prosecuted - even if it isn't always cost effective. I'd like healthcare to be cheaper, but not at the expense of the gov't calling all the shots on whether I get to live or die in a cost effective manner. I want illegal immigrants found and deported and I want those who knowingly hire them jailed, even though it would be government that has to perform that function at a cost. Etc, etc, etc. In other words, attempts to pigeonhole a group you don't like should not resort to the poor tactics of picking 1 item of something they support and then using that as some std of purity to measure every one of their goals. The world is not black and white, it is gray.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
|
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Linklist
All the laws in the world won't change a thing. The Internet has been a complete game-changer to the way the content industry does business. To a certain extent, the music industry has adapted, even though Apple now holds them by the balls, but the movie industry hasn't.
I still do not subscribe to the notion that each incidence of piracy is equal a lost sale. There is no proof whatsoever that people who pirate content would have otherwise purchased it legitimately if piracy were not an option.
I do hold to the fact that like the DMCA, all SOPA/PIPA will do is make life miserable for legitimate users of copyrighted content. The same content industry that gave us the DMCA still clings to the idea that you need to buy a separate copy of the same content if you want to use it in different places, and still believes that you are a criminal should you decide to break the DRM restrictions on legitimately purchased content so that you can use it in non-infringing ways (sorry RIAA, but ripping a track off a CD you bought so you can listen to it in the car without ruining the original disk is NOT piracy).
The push for yet another law just reminds of the push for more gun control laws. In both situations, none of the present laws are effective, the ones in place don't seem to be enforced, and the only people who are impacted are legitimate users who simply wish to exercise their rights.
Enough is enough.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:The world is not black and white, it is gray.
The RIAA/MPAA doesn't see it that way. To them, the world is black and white.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:All the laws in the world won't change a thing. The Internet has been a complete game-changer to the way the content industry does business. To a certain extent, the music industry has adapted, even though Apple now holds them by the balls, but the movie industry hasn't.
I still do not subscribe to the notion that each incidence of piracy is equal a lost sale. There is no proof whatsoever that people who pirate content would have otherwise purchased it legitimately if piracy were not an option.
I do hold to the fact that like the DMCA, all SOPA/PIPA will do is make life miserable for legitimate users of copyrighted content. The same content industry that gave us the DMCA still clings to the idea that you need to buy a separate copy of the same content if you want to use it in different places, and still believes that you are a criminal should you decide to break the DRM restrictions on legitimately purchased content so that you can use it in non-infringing ways (sorry RIAA, but ripping a track off a CD you bought so you can listen to it in the car without ruining the original disk is NOT piracy).
The push for yet another law just reminds of the push for more gun control laws. In both situations, none of the present laws are effective, the ones in place don't seem to be enforced, and the only people who are impacted are legitimate users who simply wish to exercise their rights.
Enough is enough.
I haven't defended all the copyright law features. No one has. Not even the RIAA or MPAA. But opponents like to take the position that if copyright law isn't perfect, then there should be no copyright at all. Many of those opponents do subscribe to the entitlement theory that "IF they can steal it; they should be allowed to". The solution isn't all or nothing. The copyright laws need changing, especially for length of time and use by 1 person over many devices. So lobby for those changes. But enforcing copyright restrictions IS NEEDED, especially from those overseas who feel that stealing from the RICH USA is justified.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
|
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | reply to pnh102
You & Coldmoon pretty much sum it up.
Use the tools you have now in an effective & responsible way, then we MIGHT consider giving you more.
Make it so that legitimate purchasers can use their content as they see fit.
Making the parallel to gun control is a good argument. The government doesn't enforce the laws that are on the books, but they want to make it harder for legitimate folks to exercise their rights...
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power |
|
1 edit | reply to Linklist
Re: Google anti-SOPA/PIPA actions will disappear soon . |
|
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:I haven't defended all the copyright law features. No one has. Not even the RIAA or MPAA. But opponents like to take the position that if copyright law isn't perfect, then there should be no copyright at all. There really shouldn't be any copyright law at all. Or at least, nothing other than restrictions regarding commercial use. "Copyright" is an artificial entity creating value by restricting thought, nothing more. (Intellectual property is nothing more than data, information, and ultimately thought.) By trying to tell people what they can copy or not, view or not, and if they could manage it, think about or not, they're ultimately attempting to control how we think.
Companies need to realize this anachronistic business model of artificially limiting a free resource to increase value is never going to work in the digital age. They are fighting a losing battle. What they need to do is provide tangible value, something that doesn't need artificial legal restrictions to back up its demand. This is inevitable - they will adapt or die out. "Piracy" is growing, not shrinking. People are learning that information is as free as the bandwidth it takes to acquire it. The cat is out of the bag, and no amount of government wrangling is ever getting it back in. |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:2
 ·Bright House
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:I hate thieves(and copyright infringers) and want them prosecuted - even if it isn't always cost effective. Then we can expect you to speak out against these copyright violators and call for their accounting; under the full measure of the law.
If your position has any credibility, that is what you will do.
quote:
This is a screencap of PIPA co-sponsor Roy Blunt's Twitter page from a couple of days ago.
The background image is by photographer Walter Rowland. I spoke to his wife Linny, and she told me:
"Wow, I'm so surprised to see that someone would do this. Especially a senator! It's even more of a violation because I'm actually in the photo so it's as if I'm supporting his beliefs. Yes, that's one of my husband's photos who is actually a semi-professional photographer, and no, they weren't given permission."
Roy has since changed the background on his Twitter in an attempt to cover his tracks.
This is PIPA supporter and Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill's Twitter page as it appears right now.
And this is the background image she stole from Flickr user J. Stephen Conn, who told me this:
"I do not recall giving the senator permission to use this photo on her Twitter account. I have put the photo in the Creative Commons, which means anyone may use it for non-commercial purposes, however, proper attribution of the photo should be given because it is NOT in the public domain."
The above screencap shows the homepage of Florida congressman/SOPA co-sponsor/probable PIPA supporter Dennis Ross' website.
Which features the appropriately titled illustration "Overweight Government Pig" by cartoonist John S. Pritchett. You'll notice that Dennis cropped out the part where it says "© John Pritchett". We contacted John, and he told us:
"To my knowledge, I did not license the usage of my "Overweight Govt. Pig" illustration to Dennis Ross."
Thanks to dave  , whose post brought it to my attention.
That's more attribution than the 'thieving' PIPA supporters bother to give.
NV
--
Adopting other people's animosity is The New Stupid. |
|
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | reply to Linklist
*Yawn*
OK, so i'm an "anarchist" because i don't want anyone a third party in my 2 way conversation?
You're not good enough to censor me, the government isn't good enough, the MPAA and RIAA sure as hell aren't.
NOBODY IS.
I GET TO DECIDE WHAT WEBSITES I CAN VISIT.
Is that concept too hard for you to understand? |
|
flbas1
join:2010-02-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL | reply to Linklist
you're drinking too much koolade
YouTube has nothing to worry about. Google made peace with the content providers awhile ago
And SOPA/PIPA, despite the slippery slope arguments by opponents, is NOT designed to block US sites. It is squarely aimed at foreign sites and governments that tolerate/encourage the stealing of US content.
And - how about Google.CA, google.CN, and Google.KR. What happens when my google.com filters, and I use those sites. We are going to only fine the canadians, chinese, or whoever?
no sir - MPAA is gunning for Google here.
But - I did see this blog: »www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/1···ail=hide
She is a content producer, and had your opinion, until she stopped with her koolade. |
|
tcopePremium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2 | reply to Linklist
Truth is, it _can_ block US sites and you have nothing to back up your statement that it's not "designed" this way (as it clearly is). If it won't be used this way why would not contain this exclusion.
But then again, why not simply leave this all up to the gov't? It's not like they will abuse the power. When you have the RIAA and MPAA pumping millions into your pockets the power _will_ be abused. |
|
