American Censorship Day (http://americancensorship.org/).
Congress is voting on this bill today.
If it's passed, whole websites would be blocked from viewing in the United States.
Having read the bill and what it allows, I am eerily reminded of President Clark's rise to power in "Babylon 5", where the mere expression of discontent was labelled 'sedition', and the shops werw summarily shut down by the Night Watch and the people running the shops vanished.
This bill allows companies to merely claim copyright infringement without proof, and the government can then demand that the site not only be shut down but that it be removed from search engines WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. The site has only 5 days to contest the claim before it is shut down. Since when has a government entity processed a non-lobbyist-linked contestment in 5 days? Shut a short time-frame guarantees the site will vanish.
This is not only what the megacorporations desire to crush any small upstart competition by getting them erased by merely a rumor that they're infringing on something, it is also exactly what any future oppressive regime would use to stamp out anyone who voiced opposition. Rumors, allusions, false claims... all resulting in immediate punishment and silencing.
It's a huge government overreach and far too much power to both huge corporations and government regulatory bureaus.
Remember this: the government never gives itself powers it doesn't intend to abuse.
While I'd LIKE to view Alondro's statements as "alarmist", I'm too busy freaking out to come up with a rebuttal. Nonetheless, you two aren't the only ones that have noticed. Escapist's Jimquisition did a video on it, but it feels like he mostly just read off the wikipedia entry. Still, here's a link to it: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4993-Sony-Nintendo-EA-and-SOPA (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4993-Sony-Nintendo-EA-and-SOPA)
If this law passes, better say good by to youtube, facebook, twitter, google, yahoo, ect that anything relating to anything copyrighted.
This may or may not include this site as well.
Here's a page where artists (graphic artists, writers, musicians, photographers, filmmakers, etc.) from the USA can sign a petition (http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa/artists) to stop Protect-IP from being sanctioned. I can't sign because I'm from Argentina, but it would be great if some people here could add their names to the list, to protect all the websites that help you share your work.
http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa/artists
Guys, I've been know to throw "Devil's Advocate" arguments out from time to time, if only to stimulate discussion, so prepare yourself because this is a big one:
Who cares if this bill is passed?
I mean, the internet is already a chaotic mish-mash of rehashed pop-culture from movies, TV series and chart topping music that's anything for a week to 50 years old. It was fun for the first few times but it's getting like any valued form of internet expression is just taking something that's popular and mixing it with something else that's popular if you don't just make some super obvious twist on it that's somewhat decently executed.
Sure, a couple of sites will get nuked (as if That Guy with the Glasses (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/) is going to last a single day after this bill gets passed), but they'll really only be sites that are already desperately mining the products of these Entertainment companies in the first place. Maybe if they finally get silenced, and people disover that slightly modifying and re-releasing something that people with far more skill and experience have created is a no-go, people will finally sit down and create something original.
I wouldn't say it like that exactly.
I think a more accurate description would be that theirs a whole lot of junk online and in order to see the good stuff, you have to navigate through it.
While using it to clean up the Internet of bootlegging and other violations would be nice. There's no guarantee that a loophole in it won't be exploited and you definitely don't want those loopholes there that someone can exploit for bogus reasons.
This bill gives companies the right to close any website as long as any of its content infringes copyright laws. That basically means goodbye to YouTube, Veoh, Vimeo, deviantArt, FurAffinity, Photobucket, ImageShack, Facebook, Picassa, Flickr and all the other websites where people can upload and share their work. Because, even though they have policies against copyright infringement, they can't control everything that everyone uploads. And some companies are already raiding against these websites, so that law will give them the right to close them down.
And while some of those websites are big and have more than enough money to put up a good defense in court, what will happen to smaller websites where people post fanart or fanfiction?
Quote from: Gabi on December 26, 2011, 04:36:58 PM
This bill gives companies the right to close any website as long as any of its content infringes copyright laws. That basically means goodbye to YouTube, Veoh, Vimeo, deviantArt, FurAffinity, Photobucket, ImageShack, Facebook, Picassa, Flickr and all the other websites where people can upload and share their work. Because, even though they have policies against copyright infringement, they can't control everything that everyone uploads. And some companies are already raiding against these websites, so that law will give them the right to close them down.
And while some of those websites are big and have more than enough money to put up a good defense in court, what will happen to smaller websites where people post fanart or fanfiction?
I know quite a few stories and drawings made by artist that can give quite a bit of cred for allowing them to share their work and get commissions.
How could Ribbontail share her stories and drawings while asking if anyone wants to by a commission without Deviant art?
Jigsaw did a few Ratchet and Clank fan-fictions that never would have been online if this bill was probably around earlier. The site that their on would probably be on grounds for this bill to take that site off line.
Technically, things a built, made, thought of on the idea's and things that come before. Much like breathing in to get air, we take in are surrounding environment for the ground work for are new idea's and thoughts. Now their is something to be said about being inspired and then just stealing something. What people are most fearful in this situation is that this bridges the gap between them and incidentally controls what we see and think while hogging all the money for new idea's.
...Probably wouldn't be any good idea's at that.
When it comes down to it all ideas stem backwards to one original idea. At that it'll end up being who has the copyright to this meta-idea. You know somebody should have had the foresight to copyright the concept of a character. That could probably shut down nearly all creative processes, for there to be a story, a story must happen to someone.
Quote from: justacritic on December 26, 2011, 09:36:28 PM
When it comes down to it all ideas stem backwards to one original idea. At that it'll end up being who has the copyright to this meta-idea. You know somebody should have had the foresight to copyright the concept of a character. That could probably shut down nearly all creative processes, for there to be a story, a story must happen to someone.
Just to throw in a counter-argument: You can't copyright a character, you can trademark them, but it requires payment and a formal process. By contrast, copyright is automatic in everything you create (art, music, writing, etc). In addition, even in a world that fully enforces copyright and trademark you're still allowed to take a lot of inspiration from things. The Teenage Mutant Hero (I'm from Ireland okay?) Turtles "inspired" Biker Mice from Mars and Street Sharks, but you didn't see lawsuits being flung around over that.
Finally, I never quite understand the idea of all ideas stemming backwards from one original idea. Could you give me an example? Or better yet, tell me what this original idea is?
Quote from: Sofox on December 27, 2011, 08:39:31 AM
Quote from: justacritic on December 26, 2011, 09:36:28 PM
When it comes down to it all ideas stem backwards to one original idea. At that it'll end up being who has the copyright to this meta-idea. You know somebody should have had the foresight to copyright the concept of a character. That could probably shut down nearly all creative processes, for there to be a story, a story must happen to someone.
Just to throw in a counter-argument: You can't copyright a character, you can trademark them, but it requires payment and a formal process. By contrast, copyright is automatic in everything you create (art, music, writing, etc). In addition, even in a world that fully enforces copyright and trademark you're still allowed to take a lot of inspiration from things. The Teenage Mutant Hero (I'm from Ireland okay?) Turtles "inspired" Biker Mice from Mars and Street Sharks, but you didn't see lawsuits being flung around over that.
Finally, I never quite understand the idea of all ideas stemming backwards from one original idea. Could you give me an example? Or better yet, tell me what this original idea is?
Imagination.
*patents the process for imagination!*
MUWAH HA HA HA HA!! :mwaha
Quote from: Sofox on December 26, 2011, 03:46:06 PM
Guys, I've been know to throw "Devil's Advocate" arguments out from time to time, if only to stimulate discussion, so prepare yourself because this is a big one:
Who cares if this bill is passed?
I mean, the internet is already a chaotic mish-mash of rehashed pop-culture from movies, TV series and chart topping music that's anything for a week to 50 years old. It was fun for the first few times but it's getting like any valued form of internet expression is just taking something that's popular and mixing it with something else that's popular if you don't just make some super obvious twist on it that's somewhat decently executed.
Sure, a couple of sites will get nuked (as if That Guy with the Glasses (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/) is going to last a single day after this bill gets passed), but they'll really only be sites that are already desperately mining the products of these Entertainment companies in the first place. Maybe if they finally get silenced, and people disover that slightly modifying and re-releasing something that people with far more skill and experience have created is a no-go, people will finally sit down and create something original.
Um.. really?
What about things that take public items and twist them in substantial ways?
Say, the SCP Foundation - most of the pictures that are used in the files are taken just like that, and edited off any notices because otherwise they wouldn't look authentic - the policy is that when someone requests it removed who is the author, we do it.
If anyone poked into it under SOPA, it (and even, the whole Wikidot) wouldn't last for a day. Yet, i somehow fail to see how any of the well-rated entries are "taking something that's popular and giving it an obvious twist".
This is just an example I know well, and I bet there's dozens more - every blog using a random "internet" picture to illustrate an article would likely end the same way.
Quote from: Sofox on December 26, 2011, 03:46:06 PM
Guys, I've been know to throw "Devil's Advocate" arguments out from time to time, if only to stimulate discussion, so prepare yourself because this is a big one:
Who cares if this bill is passed?
I mean, the internet is already a chaotic mish-mash of rehashed pop-culture from movies, TV series and chart topping music that's anything for a week to 50 years old. It was fun for the first few times but it's getting like any valued form of internet expression is just taking something that's popular and mixing it with something else that's popular if you don't just make some super obvious twist on it that's somewhat decently executed.
Sure, a couple of sites will get nuked (as if That Guy with the Glasses (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/) is going to last a single day after this bill gets passed), but they'll really only be sites that are already desperately mining the products of these Entertainment companies in the first place. Maybe if they finally get silenced, and people disover that slightly modifying and re-releasing something that people with far more skill and experience have created is a no-go, people will finally sit down and create something original.
But, in instilling a bad sort of "Quality Control" is it really worth it to basically screw over an entire Industry? And that's assuming that will happen, the people pushing this Bill do not care about quality or creativity. If the Movie Industry genuinely did care, we'd have been spared Bucky Larson and Jack and Jill this year.
Re-releasing things and slightly modifying them from other things someone else has done is basically the Entertainment Industries' MO. In the wake of Harry Potter, we got a slew of adaptations of children's fantasy novels of various degrees of quality (I'm looking at you, The Dark is Rising and Eragon) and the popularity of Sherlock Holmes and Transformers has lead to adaptations of public Domain classic novels and toys/board games.
I know it sounds cynical, but come on: why the Hell should artists, writers, and the like on the 'net be pressured by the entertainment industry to "Be creative" when they themselves basically rip everyone else off and make a shit ton of money in the process? This arguement doesn't work, and just make the backers of this bill look even more hypocritical and money grubbing than usual.
http://falkvinge.net/2011/12/27/american-corporate-software-can-no-longer-be-trusted-for-anything/
Interesting article that attacks the stupid bill on economic means.
Basically, if a precedent is set in forcing US companies to enforce US regulations abroad, circumventing and ignoring local law and local interests, it'll likely lead to the abandonment of US produced software abroad.
Quote from: Kafzeil on December 27, 2011, 08:11:11 PMwhy the Hell should artists, writers, and the like on the 'net be pressured by the entertainment industry to "Be creative" when they themselves basically rip everyone else off and make a shit ton of money in the process? This arguement doesn't work, and just make the backers of this bill look even more hypocritical and money grubbing than usual.
However angry you are at the Entertainment Industry, they actually create things.
However much you feel that, for example, Eragon is a rip off or derivative or a cash grab, it was still casted, scripted, shot, edited and produced as part of a single project to create a new movie. They may have taken ideas and concepts from previous works, the movie is still a new creation.
If internet sites were to do the same thing, they wouldn't have anything to fear from the bill.
Instead, they take parts of fully completed products and use them in a new fashion.
Quote from: Sofox on December 28, 2011, 01:32:37 PM
Quote from: Kafzeil on December 27, 2011, 08:11:11 PMwhy the Hell should artists, writers, and the like on the 'net be pressured by the entertainment industry to "Be creative" when they themselves basically rip everyone else off and make a shit ton of money in the process? This arguement doesn't work, and just make the backers of this bill look even more hypocritical and money grubbing than usual.
However angry you are at the Entertainment Industry, they actually create things.
However much you feel that, for example, Eragon is a rip off or derivative or a cash grab, it was still casted, scripted, shot, edited and produced as part of a single project to create a new movie. They may have taken ideas and concepts from previous works, the movie is still a new creation.
If internet sites were to do the same thing, they wouldn't have anything to fear from the bill.
Instead, they take parts of fully completed products and use them in a new fashion.
So?
As you stated yourself, they use them in a new fashion.
What about Mystery Science Theater 3000 which used failmovies from earlier? Not much difference there.
Also.. this just reeks of arbitrary drawn lines in the spirit of "Alcoholic = person who drinks more than his physician"
Quote from: Sofox on December 28, 2011, 01:32:37 PM
Quote from: Kafzeil on December 27, 2011, 08:11:11 PMwhy the Hell should artists, writers, and the like on the 'net be pressured by the entertainment industry to "Be creative" when they themselves basically rip everyone else off and make a shit ton of money in the process? This arguement doesn't work, and just make the backers of this bill look even more hypocritical and money grubbing than usual.
However angry you are at the Entertainment Industry, they actually create things.
However much you feel that, for example, Eragon is a rip off or derivative or a cash grab, it was still casted, scripted, shot, edited and produced as part of a single project to create a new movie. They may have taken ideas and concepts from previous works, the movie is still a new creation.
If internet sites were to do the same thing, they wouldn't have anything to fear from the bill.
Instead, they take parts of fully completed products and use them in a new fashion.
Frivolous, irrelevant things of no actual importance. When an industry has a lobbyist body in politics, it no longer cares about art, just filling it's own collective pockets.
True, but Ergaon was not a quality movie. It was expected to make money. Your average fan site or fan fiction makes almost zero revenue, and are often created by loyal fans.
This bill basically gives the rights for the industry to turn it's own fans into felons.
I mean really, people who upload short clips to Youtube are usually fans who mean no harm. Hell, Sometimes shows get more popularity thanks to Youtube.
Also, why should one industry be forced to bow to another? Why should the Entertainment industry dictate what goes on in the Internet? The web is not there domain, and yet they're not just requesting a little power. They're asking for untold power as possessed by governments like Iran and China. SOPA is hideously unfair and biased, and something like this will be abused.
Is that worth making a handful of bad artists and writers stop writing fanfiction? Handing complete control over the net to people who clearly don't give a crap about the Internet?
Quote from: VAE on December 28, 2011, 03:06:31 PM
What about Mystery Science Theater 3000 which used failmovies from earlier? Not much difference there.
I've looked this up. It's hard to get a straight answer, but it seems that MST formally aquired the rights for every movie they showed and at least in one case, it seems the rights ran into problems and the show in question couldn't be released on DVD.
Anyway, the comment I made was in response to what I felt was an illogical argument from Kafzeil, and seeing how he's gone on and written a bunch of more stuff, I suppose it's time to sumarise things as whole and bow out.
Kafzeil, in case you haven't realised, I don't support SOPA, in fact I'm against it and was one of the people who started to switch domains from GoDaddy when it turned out they supported it. I gave my "devil's advocate" speech to promote discussion and debate, and honestly, I think Gabi and Josh soundly rebutted my argument in the first instance.
It seems another argument emerged about the value of current internet culture however, and that's a pretty large one to tackle so I'm not sure that, if we decide to continue it, we should continue it here.
I one question for Kafzeil though: You seem to hate the entertainment companies. That's understandable, they've pulled a lot of stuff over time and your feelings are shared by a lot of people.
But if you, with just the snap of your fingers, could make them all vanish, would you? Suddenly no movies being released, no music being broadcast, no new TV shows being made. Would you want that?
Quote from: Sofox on December 28, 2011, 04:16:33 PM
... one question for Kafzeil though: You seem to hate the entertainment companies. That's understandable, they've pulled a lot of stuff over time and your feelings are shared by a lot of people.
But if you, with just the snap of your fingers, could make them all vanish, would you? Suddenly no movies being released, no music being broadcast, no new TV shows being made. Would you want that?
I've been only skimming this conversation a bit, but I'd like to address something about your question/statement that is false. Getting rid of the current industry would not cause entertainment to stop. Heck, getting rid of the *industry* completely and utterly and forever wouldn't stop entertainment. This stuff existed before the industry came into play in many cases (such as music, painting, acting/theater, writing etc) and could, as it has before, survive without it. Maybe not advance as quickly as it has, but who knows?
Quote from: Sofox on December 28, 2011, 04:16:33 PM
Quote from: VAE on December 28, 2011, 03:06:31 PM
What about Mystery Science Theater 3000 which used failmovies from earlier? Not much difference there.
I've looked this up. It's hard to get a straight answer, but it seems that MST formally aquired the rights for every movie they showed and at least in one case, it seems the rights ran into problems and the show in question couldn't be released on DVD.
And that helps your argument how?
You stated that derivative works are of little value and wouldn't be missed - you were arguing about such a thing being actually beneficial to culture.
Or does the magical act of rights transferrence somehow make these valuable? What about derivatives that are better written than episodes of say, MST3K
Essentially, citing this as a beneficial effect is misguided because the pruning it does to derivative rubbish is accidental - it is neither the intent of the bill, nor a necessary consequence of it's application - quality doesn't ever come into the consideration.
Hence the whole argument is about as sensible as saying that war is good because your asshole neigbour just might get killed.
Quote
Anyway, the comment I made was in response to what I felt was an illogical argument from Kafzeil, and seeing how he's gone on and written a bunch of more stuff, I suppose it's time to sumarise things as whole and bow out.
Kafzeil, in case you haven't realised, I don't support SOPA, in fact I'm against it and was one of the people who started to switch domains from GoDaddy when it turned out they supported it. I gave my "devil's advocate" speech to promote discussion and debate, and honestly, I think Gabi and Josh soundly rebutted my argument in the first instance.
At least.
Quote
It seems another argument emerged about the value of current internet culture however, and that's a pretty large one to tackle so I'm not sure that, if we decide to continue it, we should continue it here.
Make a thread if you wish.
Quote
I one question for Kafzeil though: You seem to hate the entertainment companies. That's understandable, they've pulled a lot of stuff over time and your feelings are shared by a lot of people.
But if you, with just the snap of your fingers, could make them all vanish, would you? Suddenly no movies being released, no music being broadcast, no new TV shows being made. Would you want that?
I'd do it, gladly. There's enough decent enough people's culture out there to keep one busy for ages, and most of my (and not only mine, given what's broadcast ,say , over the holidays) favourite movies etc. come from the socialist era anyways.
Furthermore it'd stop these sorts of bullying.
I believe the entertainment industry outlived itself, and is clinging by the straws.
EDIT: Mao got it exactly right.
Quote from: Sofox on December 28, 2011, 04:16:33 PM
I one question for Kafzeil though: You seem to hate the entertainment companies. That's understandable, they've pulled a lot of stuff over time and your feelings are shared by a lot of people.
But if you, with just the snap of your fingers, could make them all vanish, would you? Suddenly no movies being released, no music being broadcast, no new TV shows being made. Would you want that?
Okay, grab some popcorn, this might be a long winded rant.
First off, if it meant sacrificing some kind of technology that had improved the world considerably, yes, I would. To me, it's like asking if I'd choose between keeping chocolate bars on shelves versus manufacturing polio vaccines. Yes, i know both Hollywood and the candy industry both employ lots of people and are worth a lot of money. But if I had to make the call, I don't think I could live with myself if choose Hollywood over something that's sparked revolutions earlier this very year and revolutionized global communication and commerce.
Though In all honestly, I don't think I *could* ever make that call without feeling some regret.I admit, I am not the kind of guy who'd want to make these decisions.
Also, I do not hate the entertainment industry as a whole. Hell I like movies. I want to see more of them made.
My relationship to the industry is one of hate and love. Made it's because there's this weird duality, or maybe it's because I feel modern Hollywood is twisted mockery of what it once was in the 70s when the blockbuster era started. It almost feels like Hollywood is appoarching a retrend of what happened in the 60s: Bloated budgets,shrinking returns, stale movies. It likely won't killed Hollywood, mind you (If it did, well, again, we'd have no New Hollywood or anything like that) but to me, it seems studios are getting desperate. gimmicks like 3-D and moving chairs would have been laughed at ten years ago. It's strange kind of innovation where spectacle rules and new special effects and gimmicks are created, but we're unlikely to see any new cool Indie movies like Reservoir Dogs released, if not advertised.
Their business model is obsolete, arguably, but they're still sticking to it, rather then trying to adapt. SOPA strikes me as not just unfair, but hopelessly misguided. It's an extreme attempt to stop piracy, which likely will only slow it down. Pirates are wily, crafty, and very determined. MW2 was cracked within days specifically BECAUSE IW and activision bragged about how pirate proof the game was.
if anything, SOPA is just the Nuke of the Pirates versus Entertainment makers Wars: Unlikely to work long term, and just likely to royally screw over the legit consumer.
I pity them more then I hate them.
Anyways, Sofox, i hope that clears things up, if it makes sense.
I'd argue that it's more than just misguided and would slow the pirates; it wouldn't: Hardcore pirates will find a way, and it will easily work around the silly DNS restrictions this law would place.
However, what it could easily do is create a way to censor "unpopular" news: Say Company A leaks a huge amount of credit card information. Instead of telling people, they try to cover it up. Anyone attempting to post a story on it... well, they send cease and desist letters(however fraudulent), and the site goes down within 5 days.
As it is now, the content can stay up for 30 days(well beyond when the news goes from "new" to "unimportant"), and there is time for appeals etc.
I do think it will do a lot to crack down on people creating their own legitimate content(especially parody work), and nothing to stop or slow pirates.
I do not tend to view these sorts of acts as means of protecting the creative works of individuals, rather I think of them as being weight brought down by larger organizations to help them maintain a litigious status quo. Censorship never helps anyone be more creative, only less.
That said, I see these crop up about once a week now. But I guess these industries would not be where they are at if not for their persistence.
Apparently there will be a protest against SOPA and PIPA on Wednesday. Even though most Americans are against it, that link says that Congress is about to pass this bill.
Quote from: Baal Hadad on January 16, 2012, 10:30:35 PM
Apparently there will be a protest against SOPA and PIPA on Wednesday. Even though most Americans are against it, that link says that Congress is about to pass this bill.
Congress is going to attempt to pass PIPA next week, while SOPA has been temporarily shelved. This widescale protest is an attempt to built energy against these bills until they die. And considering that these bills went from "surefire to pass" to "co-sponsors are backing off," it might actually be doable. Especially since Wikipedia is going to go dark for 24 hours to protest these bills.
Quote from: Jairus on January 17, 2012, 01:08:24 AM
Congress is going to attempt to pass PIPA next week, while SOPA has been temporarily shelved. This widescale protest is an attempt to built energy against these bills until they die. And considering that these bills went from "surefire to pass" to "co-sponsors are backing off," it might actually be doable. Especially since Wikipedia is going to go dark for 24 hours to protest these bills.
Now, let's wait for the "salami tactics" to pass key provisions of these bills one at a time.
I should note something.
Hollywood + Music Industry = hard core liberals + support SOPA
Tea Party = labelled right-wing racists BY Hollywood BUT are AGAINST SOPA http://www.teapartycommand.com/node/2054
This bill was pushed by both Democrats and old-school establishment Republicans, the very same people who mocked the Tea Party, which is the only sizeable political group united against SOPA!!
Soooooo... who are the champions of liberty again? Actions speak louder than words and the proof is in the politics! Stop believing what the media is told to tell you by its Hollywood handlers (entertainment megacorps who own the media outlets).
Sent letters to my Congressman, called my uncle (a spokesman for the Republicans in my state), and have begun answering the phone "ni hao" to make a point about countries that use online censorship. I've read the bills (I took a class on understanding Legal-ese), and I was displeased to find that the provisions in the bill are disconcertingly vague.
FIGHT THIS, PEOPLE.
Quote from: Black_angel on January 18, 2012, 04:06:32 PM
Sent letters to my Congressman, called my uncle (a spokesman for the Republicans in my state), and have begun answering the phone "ni hao" to make a point about countries that use online censorship. I've read the bills (I took a class on understanding Legal-ese), and I was displeased to find that the provisions in the bill are disconcertingly vague.
FIGHT THIS, PEOPLE.
Um, china at least uses censorship for political reasons , which in my view is a large step above using it to bow over to corporate interest.
Other than that ,the idea is hillarious.
Quote from: VAE on January 18, 2012, 04:22:12 PM
Um, china at least uses censorship for political reasons , which in my view is a large step above using it to bow over to corporate interest.
Other than that ,the idea is hillarious.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. You're saying that political censorship is...better than censorship based on copyright issues?
Quote from: Cogidubnus on January 18, 2012, 05:47:39 PM
Quote from: VAE on January 18, 2012, 04:22:12 PM
Um, china at least uses censorship for political reasons , which in my view is a large step above using it to bow over to corporate interest.
Other than that ,the idea is hillarious.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. You're saying that political censorship is...better than censorship based on copyright issues?
Yes... not entirely sure whether China qualifies - I wasn't there, but my way of thought is as such - if the government actually maintains decent standard of living for people, and pretty much only uses censorship to help quench opposition to it, it is better than it being used to enforce corporate interests which by definition run against the interests of people, be it workers , or those who are supplied the produce - there are clear antagonist class relationships there.
Then again that is dependent on whether there is a good standard of living, if not then the government is taking away one of the few ways people attempt to make themselves heard
I think censorship, whether political or economical, is bad. Unless you're only censoring things that have proven to be illegal, which is not the case with these bills. It is the case in China because they have laws that forbid speaking out against the government, but I think that's a terrible legislation.
Anyway, for an unimportant piece of information, the Chinese say "wei" when they pick up the phone (pronounced like "way"). "Ni hao", if said at all, comes later.
Oh, and I did what I could, being outside the US. TPM joined the blackout yesterday, I changed my Facebook profile picture for the day and signed the online petition, and I've been raising awareness among my friends.
More wankery, as an aside.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/20/0259218/eu-to-sign-acta-later-this-month
SOPA, PIPA, ACTA... all these bills, almost identical... all appearing at the same time?
There are no such things as coincidences in politics, kiddies.
Nearly everything they do is contrived well ahead of time, especially where legislation is concerned.
In essence, what we have here is solid evidence of massive multinational-corporation-government collusion.
All the companies have found a way around anti-trust legislation by agreeing not to compete with each other, using price fixing and unions to ensure they're all on the same footing (in much the same way the oil companies work), at the same time they give money and high-paying positions to government officials before, during, and after they're in office (as example, Chris Dodd now is a lawyer for the MPAA, one of SOPA and PIPA's biggest supporters).
I've been studying these monstrosities carefully since they first appeared in October, following the money trail, seeing who's behind it and which groups are working directly with each other to force the issue. There is no doubt at all in my mind any longer that this is indeed a true conspiracy, but one that they haven't even bothered to hide because a) they're confident that eventually they'll be able to sneak it through when the public gets bored, as it always does b) it's on a scale too big to hide, so they just tried to make the wording deliberately obtuse and disguise it as an anti-piracy bill.
Quote from: Alondro on January 22, 2012, 08:42:23 AM
(as example, Chris Dodd now is a lawyer for the MPAA, one of SOPA and PIPA's biggest supporters).
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/01/22/1945243/white-house-petition-to-investigate-dodd-for-bribery
And a direct link to the petition is here: http://wh.gov/KiE
...have fun.
Oh wow 26,554 signatures already and still counting. You think they might take a lot of notice if this reaches 100,000?
Speaking of Internet censorship, have you seen this (http://www.change.org/petitions/twitter-dont-censor-us-twittercensorship)?
Here's one for ACTA:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/eu_save_the_internet/
Signed.
In related news, I'm proud my country (Slovakia) was among the five that didn't sign ACTA.
I have signed as well.
With its participation in ACTA, the USA has once more signed away its soverignty to a foreign government entity. ACTA will be enforced by another giant independent agency with broad prosecutory powers, and the ability to violate the rights of anyone who comes in their sites.
I agree with Poland, time for open revolt.
Quote from: Alondro on January 30, 2012, 09:42:04 AM
With its participation in ACTA, the USA has once more signed away its soverignty to a foreign government entity.
I was under the impression that it was the USA or at least US corporate interests which created the thing, with the intent of forcing it on everyone.
Quote from: Tapewolf on January 30, 2012, 09:52:32 AM
Quote from: Alondro on January 30, 2012, 09:42:04 AM
With its participation in ACTA, the USA has once more signed away its soverignty to a foreign government entity.
I was under the impression that it was the USA or at least US corporate interests which created the thing, with the intent of forcing it on everyone.
To be honest , though , not like anyone asked the actual american public, either - they didn't choose it anymore than the poles or us for that matter.
Yet another pointer on how democracy was swapped out for plutocracy.
Quote from: VAE on January 30, 2012, 10:00:45 AM
To be honest , though , not like anyone asked the actual american public, either - they didn't choose it anymore than the poles or us for that matter.
Oh, absolutely. The fact that the thing is being done in secret is appalling.
QuoteYet another pointer on how democracy was swapped out for plutocracy.
How did it go? "In the 1980s, capitalism defeated communism. In the 1990s, it defeated democracy."
Quote from: VAE on January 30, 2012, 10:00:45 AM
Quote from: Tapewolf on January 30, 2012, 09:52:32 AM
Quote from: Alondro on January 30, 2012, 09:42:04 AM
With its participation in ACTA, the USA has once more signed away its soverignty to a foreign government entity.
I was under the impression that it was the USA or at least US corporate interests which created the thing, with the intent of forcing it on everyone.
To be honest , though , not like anyone asked the actual american public, either - they didn't choose it anymore than the poles or us for that matter.
Yet another pointer on how democracy was swapped out for plutocracy.
To be honest with you.
It makes it seem that they don't care what we think anymore.
To be Devil's advocate here, something to combat piracy/copyright fraud is probably going to have to take the form of a multi-national treaty. Otherwise, you run into all the problems of someone hosting a hub somewhere that your country doesn't have an extradition treaty with. And I've yet to hear of a treaty that allows for full congressional (or parliamentary, or whatever the local legislature calls itself) approval and review of each individual action.
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on January 30, 2012, 12:10:32 PM
To be Devil's advocate here, something to combat piracy/copyright fraud is probably going to have to take the form of a multi-national treaty. Otherwise, you run into all the problems of someone hosting a hub somewhere that your country doesn't have an extradition treaty with. And I've yet to hear of a treaty that allows for full congressional (or parliamentary, or whatever the local legislature calls itself) approval and review of each individual action.
Yup, I have no problem with that.
That's not what ACTA is, though. I'd tell you what ACTA is, but it's being discussed in privacy, and NOBODY is telling anyone what the requirements being discussed are, other than the person with the big pockets can sue anyone they like in their local court, and can extradite the person they're suing back to their own country with no warrant, judicial review, or, indeed, anything other than a statement that "that person may or may not have been stealing my shit"; the truth or untruth of the statement is not required to be checked before guilt is presumed, and the "guilty" party is dragged out of whatever car they happen to be in by whatever enforcement agency gets there first.
This is not justice. This is money buying their own laws.
You know, this stuff is popping up in Ireland.
There's a minister, Sean Sherlock, who's trying to get these wide ranging copyright powers in Irish law through a statutory instrument. This is a very sneaky way of passing law and can be seen as unconstitutional. A lot of steam is picking up against it, mentions in Irish Times, boards.ie going on protest (essentially a forum for Ireland). I've already sent emails to various ministers and including my thoughts and legal knowledge in them.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 30, 2012, 04:46:30 PM
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on January 30, 2012, 12:10:32 PM
To be Devil's advocate here, something to combat piracy/copyright fraud is probably going to have to take the form of a multi-national treaty. Otherwise, you run into all the problems of someone hosting a hub somewhere that your country doesn't have an extradition treaty with. And I've yet to hear of a treaty that allows for full congressional (or parliamentary, or whatever the local legislature calls itself) approval and review of each individual action.
Yup, I have no problem with that.
That's not what ACTA is, though. I'd tell you what ACTA is, but it's being discussed in privacy, and NOBODY is telling anyone what the requirements being discussed are, other than the person with the big pockets can sue anyone they like in their local court, and can extradite the person they're suing back to their own country with no warrant, judicial review, or, indeed, anything other than a statement that "that person may or may not have been stealing my shit"; the truth or untruth of the statement is not required to be checked before guilt is presumed, and the "guilty" party is dragged out of whatever car they happen to be in by whatever enforcement agency gets there first.
This is not justice. This is money buying their own laws.
But you can't *have* the usual court machinery of due process, warrant, fighting of extradition, because if you write a story living in the UK, I could theoretically build a damn ocean platform in the middle of the pacific, (international waters) upload a copy to something I host on my server, and distribute it to whomever I damn well please, and if you try to bring a lawsuit against me, I'll just thumb my nose and say that the court has a lack of jurisdiction.
The only conceivable people who would are the ICC in The Hague, but given their incredibly long and ineffective trial against figures like Slobodan Milosevic, I wouldn't hold much hope out there.
Administrative agencies are part of every modern government, in fact, the bulk of most legislation/regulation that most of us live by is written by them. I don't see how ACTA is any more prone to abuse than say, the DOJ or the EEOC or the SEC. (which might not in and of itself be all that reassuring)
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on January 30, 2012, 08:58:29 PM
But you can't *have* the usual court machinery of due process, warrant, fighting of extradition, because if you write a story living in the UK, I could theoretically build a damn ocean platform in the middle of the pacific, (international waters) upload a copy to something I host on my server, and distribute it to whomever I damn well please, and if you try to bring a lawsuit against me, I'll just thumb my nose and say that the court has a lack of jurisdiction.
True.
That however calls in the question why should there be a law or a set of them whose enforcement requires the breaking of the usual court machinery, since it exists for a reason.
Quote
The only conceivable people who would are the ICC in The Hague, but given their incredibly long and ineffective trial against figures like Slobodan Milosevic, I wouldn't hold much hope out there.
By incredibly long and ineffective trial, do you perchance mean him being assasinated by being given wrong medicines for his heart condition (which made it worse), which I'm pretty persuaded was so that a proper trial couldn't take place?
Because that only illustrates the point that justice is a stranger to such organisations, and we definitely *don't* want any more of them.
Quote
Administrative agencies are part of every modern government, in fact, the bulk of most legislation/regulation that most of us live by is written by them. I don't see how ACTA is any more prone to abuse than say, the DOJ or the EEOC or the SEC. (which might not in and of itself be all that reassuring)
Very true in that it isn't at all.
Furthermore, I don't see a reason why other countries should essentially submit to US version of copyright legislative plus further maluses , a move which had zero input from the public so far, and is, as Boxy said, pretty much bought and paid for.
Countries have sovereignty, after all. I think you wouldn't like it if we decided to enforce British law regarding guns in the US and arrested everyone in possession of one who isn't a cop/soldier/hunter/whatever.
Quote from: VAE on January 30, 2012, 10:15:11 PM
Very true in that it isn't at all.
Furthermore, I don't see a reason why other countries should essentially submit to US version of copyright legislative plus further maluses , a move which had zero input from the public so far, and is, as Boxy said, pretty much bought and paid for.
Countries have sovereignty, after all. I think you wouldn't like it if we decided to enforce British law regarding guns in the US and arrested everyone in possession of one who isn't a cop/soldier/hunter/whatever.
I'm not sure what you mean by my previous statement about the bulk of practical law being formed by administrative entities not being true. From a factual standard, it is true. Maybe as a normative standard, it shouldn't be true, but at least in the U.S., where I'm more familiar with the statistics, they dwarf congressional lawmaking by a wide margin, and those "Regulations" have the force of law. Here's a link (http://www2.bakersfieldcollege.edu/gdumler/1A/federal_regulations.htm). Offhand, I don't know if it's done the same way in other nations, but I'm willing to bet quite a bit of money that they do, modern legislators simply don't have the amount of technical knowledge to practically come up with coherent doctrines for most legislation, and these days primarily concern themselves with budgets.
Furthermore, the analogy between internet pirating and gun control doesn't hold water. If I own a gun in the U.S., I don't illegally own it in the UK. Unless and until we come up with a weapon that can fire accurately over the Atlantic, I can't even commit a gun crime in the UK with it. I can sit at my keyboard and pirate stuff all day long from all over the globe, and then trust to a national border to shield myself from the bulk of the international consequences. No, a better analogy would be people looking for corporate tax shelters in Bermuda, which almost every country in the Northern Hemisphere has clamped down on in some form or another.
Quote from: VAE on January 30, 2012, 10:15:11 PM
True.
That however calls in the question why should there be a law or a set of them whose enforcement requires the breaking of the usual court machinery, since it exists for a reason.
Because current law doesn't stop the problem. Online piracy is real. It's huge. And it's not just those huge corporations who get hurt. An article I pulled up at random (http://www.quora.com/How-much-income-does-the-film-industry-lose-to-piracy) estimates that around 30-40% of film box office "projected" profits are lost due to the effects of piracy. A huge Hollywood studio can grumble, and reluctantly absorb that kind of loss. An independent one? Forget it.
Quote from: VAE on January 30, 2012, 10:15:11 PM
By incredibly long and ineffective trial, do you perchance mean him being assasinated by being given wrong medicines for his heart condition (which made it worse), which I'm pretty persuaded was so that a proper trial couldn't take place?
Because that only illustrates the point that justice is a stranger to such organisations, and we definitely *don't* want any more of them.
I do believe Mr. Milosevic died some four years after the prosecution began. Do you have any evidence that his wrong medication was actually given with malice instead of being a medical error? Because once the ICC had their hands on him, I fail to see the motive for presenting a prosecution and *then* murdering him, in a proceeding that they were almost certain to convict the man. Or was someone outside the court gunning for him? That's possible, I suppose, he had a *lot* of enemies, but then how would that impact theeffectiveness (or lack thereof) of the ICC?
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on January 30, 2012, 10:47:31 PM
Quote from: VAE on January 30, 2012, 10:15:11 PM
Very true in that it isn't at all.
Furthermore, I don't see a reason why other countries should essentially submit to US version of copyright legislative plus further maluses , a move which had zero input from the public so far, and is, as Boxy said, pretty much bought and paid for.
Countries have sovereignty, after all. I think you wouldn't like it if we decided to enforce British law regarding guns in the US and arrested everyone in possession of one who isn't a cop/soldier/hunter/whatever.
I'm not sure what you mean by my previous statement about the bulk of practical law being formed by administrative entities not being true. From a factual standard, it is true. Maybe as a normative standard, it shouldn't be true, but at least in the U.S., where I'm more familiar with the statistics, they dwarf congressional lawmaking by a wide margin, and those "Regulations" have the force of law. Here's a link (http://www2.bakersfieldcollege.edu/gdumler/1A/federal_regulations.htm). Offhand, I don't know if it's done the same way in other nations, but I'm willing to bet quite a bit of money that they do, modern legislators simply don't have the amount of technical knowledge to practically come up with coherent doctrines for most legislation, and these days primarily concern themselves with budgets.
Ugh, I meant that you are right that it isn't reassuring, more the opposite. *facepaws for fail wording*
Quote
Furthermore, the analogy between internet pirating and gun control doesn't hold water. If I own a gun in the U.S., I don't illegally own it in the UK. Unless and until we come up with a weapon that can fire accurately over the Atlantic, I can't even commit a gun crime in the UK with it. I can sit at my keyboard and pirate stuff all day long from all over the globe, and then trust to a national border to shield myself from the bulk of the international consequences. No, a better analogy would be people looking for corporate tax shelters in Bermuda, which almost every country in the Northern Hemisphere has clamped down on in some form or another.
Not quite so. Asides from the fact that tax shelters do exist (i think Malta and Switzerland are quite good examples where illicit finance often goes).
Thing is , what we are talking about isn't even agreed to be a crime - look at the case with the british youth for example (US law says it is, UK law says it is not) never mind other countries having different acceptable use policies (eg, if I recall correctly, under slovak law, uploading is illegal but downloading isn't). All of it makes it more analogous to eg. Iran trying to enforce its blasphemy laws on foreign media.
Quote
Quote from: VAE on January 30, 2012, 10:15:11 PM
True.
That however calls in the question why should there be a law or a set of them whose enforcement requires the breaking of the usual court machinery, since it exists for a reason.
Because current law doesn't stop the problem. Online piracy is real. It's huge. And it's not just those huge corporations who get hurt. An article I pulled up at random (http://www.quora.com/How-much-income-does-the-film-industry-lose-to-piracy) estimates that around 30-40% of film box office "projected" profits are lost due to the effects of piracy. A huge Hollywood studio can grumble, and reluctantly absorb that kind of loss. An independent one? Forget it.
Uh, so instead of the studios changing their methodology of production in face of current one being unrentable, we should push forward a law that asides from an attempt to deal with "piracy" messes up a whole lot of other things?
That's rather analogous to what'd happen if the ice industry had pushed laws to outlaw refrigerators back in the day, arguing for the loss of profit.
Never mind that it can be said that piracy itself generates profits - an example out of the top of my head would be large-sized data plans for internet access.
Quote
I do believe Mr. Milosevic died some four years after the prosecution began. Do you have any evidence that his wrong medication was actually given with malice instead of being a medical error? Because once the ICC had their hands on him, I fail to see the motive for presenting a prosecution and *then* murdering him, in a proceeding that they were almost certain to convict the man. Or was someone outside the court gunning for him? That's possible, I suppose, he had a *lot* of enemies, but then how would that impact the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the ICC?
*throws paws up in air* You are right, I don't know of direct evidence.
However, there's a lot of circumstantial one, given the extremely flimsy reasons for the whole intervention there , the mess that was done by NATO (such as bombing civillian targets, even a chinese embassy), never mind the fact that a running joke goes that the main crime ICC investigates is being a Serb.
And various sources do say that back then, they did release a bunch of contradictory statements, going from natural causes to suicide, never mind the fact they denied him the request to go for medical treatment into Moscow.
This reminds me of a cutscene in SMAC (Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY57ErBkFFE