Wikipedia Blackout Day: Stop SOPA and PIPA
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 18, 2012 12:44 PM EST
Email
PrintIf you attempted to access Wikipedia today, at least from the US, you may have seen this:
Today Wikipedia is going semi-dark (it seems to work after you do the Congressional member lookup function) to highlight its opposition to two pieces of US federal legislation, known as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA). I want to editorialize for a moment about this more on the flip, but let me start by saying that for at least some of us, the Podium Cafe is more than just a place to experience cycling. It's an online community, a demonstration of how people can connect with each other through something as impersonal as a computer. We also generate a lot of information (as best we can) through use of online tools, from video to repositories of information like Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia to research stuff all the time. With the Google Chrome browser and its translate option, I find Wikipedia more useful than ever. If I am looking up an Italian rider or race, I can switch to the Italian Wikipedia article for more depth of information. Belgian or Dutch race? Hit the "Nederlands" language button and watch the info come rolling in. I made a small donation to Wikipedia recently to reflect the fact that they are a big part of my experience -- and consequently, a big driver of info at the Podium Cafe.
Wikipedia's funding and survival are a separate topic. If you appreciate them, please go there and donate. But today's topic is broader than Wikipedia.
And that ends the non-political content for this post. If you don't want a dose of politics right now, don't read on.
Here is the Wikipedia description of SOPA:
The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.
And here is the criticism of SOPA and PIPA from the WIkipedia message on the site today:
SOPA and PIPA would put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn't being infringed. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. SOPA and PIPA would build a framework for future restrictions and suppression. In a world in which politicians regulate the Internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia — and sites like it — cannot survive. Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is worse than the disease. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they would fatally damage the free and open Internet.
I haven't been following the debate very closely, but if this means that I can be charged with a crime for hosting unauthorized material that someone else posted, this is a HUGE threat to the Podium Cafe. Not because we have a lot of haters who would try to set me up by posting stolen video and calling the FBI. Not because we lack vigilance in the community at large; I'm sure if someone posted something at 5am my time one of you guys would have zapped it before I woke up. That happens a lot (not maliciously, some folks don't know all the restrictions). My concern is that SBN, our network, would be very sensitive about this, since they would be on the hook in all likelihood. And they are a corporation with a zillion sites, someone who would need to safeguard their interests against something like SOPA.
Maybe that hurts us and maybe it doesn't. But soapbox time... To me the whole "stop piracy" and "save intellectual property" smacks of a deeply cynical, sinister plot against the free internet. This is just me speaking, but I am deeply, deeply suspicious of the corporations behind these bills, of the Congress when the subject of highly profitable matters comes up, and of all excuses to "save IP." I believe in some basic way in intellectual property protection, but the US system is so UNBELIEVABLY fucked up that IP has become simply a means of control. There was an episode of This American Life, an American radio magazine par excellence, about the subject, including examples of someone patenting the "thermal refreshment of bread" (that would be toast) and IT companies getting patents for countless ideas which had already been patented. The purpose of all these shenanigans was to foster lawsuits to make money.
Pirated movies and music are a threat to artists, as they hurt sales and profits of people who do things to inspire us. There are a zillion shitheads on the internet these days posting illegal streams and photos for their own profit, stealing from the artists, and yes, from the major corporations who promote the artists. Stopping internet piracy is a perfectly defensible goal. But accusing ME of a crime and placing the burden on ME to stop piracy of their stuff is not about protecting artists. It's about exerting control over the Internet -- the single most profitable scheme anyone could dream up in 2012. Control the Internet and you could buy your own island in the Caribbean in about a month. Of course people are going to try this.
It will take eternal vigilance, I suspect, to keep the Internet free. Let's do our part. US readers, if you're with me, please take the time to express your opposition to SOPA and PIPA today.
198 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
+1
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
i hope google didn't trademark "+1" when they came out with google+
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Nah
We could always get around it. +2, +3, +4… the possibilities are infinite.
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 18, 2012 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
I should add
If there is a counterargument I would be all ears. Like I said, I haven’t followed this too closely. And I’m just one set of views.
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 18, 2012 12:53 PM EST reply actions
Not much in the way of a counter arguement, because the bill is rubbish
However, as someone that makes a living by producing creative works, the rabid rallying cry of “keep the Internet free” does cause me concern. As does your statement:
To me the whole “stop piracy” and “save intellectual property” smacks of a deeply cynical, sinister plot against the free internet.
The current bills are laughable and in no way do I support them. But I am concerned that there has been such an intense response to these current bills, that more sensible measures to protect IP will fail to materialize. I fear these current protests will make the Internet and even greater Wild West than it already is. Which yes, “hurts” corporations such as massive movie and music studios that are easy to kick around. But it also has the potential to hurt thousands of smaller agencies like mine, which make a living off of their creative and intellectual property.
PopUp – we need your orange asterisk thingy back.
by PopUp Rolen on Jan 18, 2012 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Thing is, though
who is it that’s liable to steal (if we accept that’s what it is that) your IP? I know of more freelance artists/illustrators/photographers etc. whose work has been appropriated by – ahem – these same large companies that have the teeth to enforce copyright if someone takes stuff from them. I won’t name names of companies or organizations but there are lots of examples out there. Then there’s the practice of only buying photos, text, illustrations under the most restrictive terms e.g. making suppliers sign away their rights, reuse clauses etc., first option contracts etc. So this whole thing has rather too much of the poacher as gamekeeper, don’t you feel?
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
I agree with everything you say
That’s why I’m not making any point about the bills themselves, which i feel are dreadful. It’s just a bit scary for me, a producer of IP, when people start screaming and yelling “free internet” from the rooftops, because I believe many people mistake a “free internet” to mean they should be able to steal, re-use and appropriate creative work in any manner they see fit.
PopUp – we need your orange asterisk thingy back.
But the distinction I'm making is that when you say "people"
I’m not sure the problem – who/what’s potentially preventing you making a living – is just random “people”. On the whole that’s not who’s threatening you. It’s larger organizations with legal & financial clout who you’d never be able to challenge.
I’m unconvinced that all that many people actually do think “free internet” in that way (kids in bedrooms downloading songs, non-Belgian cycling fans streaming Sporza, someone in an art gallery taking a photo of a favourite work), certainly not those who actually have the buying power or financial clout to make a difference. I think IP theft, such as it is, is actually rather more sinister than that. It’s just another form of (age-old) exploitation & possibly not even all that much to do with the internet. Freedom/otherwise aren’t intrinsic to any medium.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
This bill has little to do with preventing stealing.
And lots to do with limiting fair use rights and supporting digital distribution models that rob paying customers of long acknowledged rights (like the right to sell a movie you buy to someone else, or the right to use a video clip as part of a news story or commentary)
"Oh man, it’s going to take days to kill all these people!"
Yes.
Fair use is actually something that exists in the US but not in the UK & something which – doing the job I do (working in visual art) – I really envy.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
Yes, it's been very interesting, seeing, eg, the way big advertising companies ripping off small creatives
Aka Pigeons!
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 18, 2012 5:10 PM EST up reply actions
A friend of mine had a greeting card design
stolen by a big company but had no means to pursue it. :-(
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
I'm trying to remember which big company was found to be stealing Creative Commons restricted images off flickr to use in their ads
It’s always interesting, the piracy debate, because of the focus on eg stopping people watching things on youtube/or personal to us, illegal race streams, never seems to actually prove that people would pay for films/music if they couldn’t pirate them…. as opposed to big businesses pinching things they absolutely can and should pay for, but are banking on people like your friend not having the cash to chase…
Aka Pigeons!
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 18, 2012 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
There was
this study done with music piracy (how accurate it is is up for debate).
by Vlaanderen90 on Jan 18, 2012 5:50 PM EST up reply actions
There's certainly stuff
about “piracy” as market failure (supply fails to meet demand) and/or servicing very marginal markets (skint people, non-Belgian cycling fans etc.).
A lot of copyright is just daft & should be dealt with under fair use. To give an example, I shouldn’t be able to take a work in copyright from our collection at work (I work in an art gallery) & make teatowels, posters, coasters etc. to sell without permission/paying the artist. Obviously. But it beats me why it’s a problem to put that work on our leaflet to say come & see it or for a visitor to take a photo in the gallery of a work they love & post it to twitter. In the US, this last would mostly be considered fair use, though some museums are increasingly arguing otherwise.
In practice, we don’t use 20th C works from the collection on leaflets or the web. Which is really sad.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
That is sad, yes
I have gone into quite a number of museums where photographing was prohibited. Takes away some joy, especially if I go alone (and want to share later).
"Beer helps." -- Ant1.
In the UK we have no choice.
That said, Tate has started to turn a blind eye & I’d love to know on what basis.
In special exhibitions it tends to be forbidden even in museums which allow it in the collections displays.
There is an art to surreptitious museum photography.
My only reservation is if it’s a darkened space & people are using flash. That can upset other visitors.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
Flash can damage work too, can't it?
At least, I always understood that was why flash is banned?
I was wondering, at the Tate, recently, if one of the reasons they turn a blind eye is because of the way phones are now cameras, and it’s harder to spot/prove.
(I love surreptitious museum photography! It adds to the joy of a good exhibition!)
Aka Pigeons!
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 18, 2012 6:14 PM EST up reply actions
I'd be doubtful that flash could damage work
unless it was for very prolonged periods. When we have someone come in to photograph for documentation they tend to use lights but it’s only for a very short amount of time. But it’s horrible if your light levels are say 50 lux & it’s generally useless for the photo, too.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
I cannot imagine flash doing any harm.
It only lasts a millisecond.
The ban is just to prevent you from taking good photos and disturbing others.
You're right, it's sustained exposure to light that's the problem.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
The thing about not being able to take photos & post on twitter/flickr always confuses me
because that kind of thing often makes me want to go to the show – I know I’ve gone out of my way to go to shows because I’ve seen my friends post pics from them. And with my student hat on, I like to take photos to put in my research book, for notes-to-self and as evidence for my course. And as with streams, there’s often no way of actually buying anything.
(I was thinking about this recently at the (amazing, fabulous) Taryn Simon show at the Tate Modern recently. I LOVED that work, I wasn’t allowed to take pics, but the only book with it in cost * £80 *, which is way out of the budget of the majority of Tate-goers)
Aka Pigeons!
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 18, 2012 6:08 PM EST up reply actions
I really disliked that show ;-)
If you’re a student, you should make a request as a student for study purposes. Most orgs have a form you can fill in.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
I loved it! ;-D
I was really unsure about including the rabbits, mind!
(re student permissions, I usually do, or ask in my smiley voice & people let me, or just be sneaky, but it always makes me grin, the idea that I could make money off my random snaps!)
Aka Pigeons!
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 18, 2012 6:17 PM EST up reply actions
talk about censorship
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
I have not been mentioning all of the various feeds we rely on to watch racing.
I’ve sat hard on my mouth to not do so. Because at least some probably fit exactly the target of this legislation—rebroadcast in full, without license, from a foreign site, yadda yadda. Never mind that we’re only watching it that way because we can’t pick up belgian broadcasts any other way, never mind that we’re only increasing the advertiser’s reach by searching it out, and thereby increasing the value to the original broadcaster…never mind that we’re not going to click on the “hot russian women” ads run by the secondary site. There’s nothing but upside to what we watch, and the fact that we point at sites that point at links. But any of that? They, and possibly we, could be taken down in an instant.
"It is unfortunate that the Wall is not plugged in correctly."
Well
If this thingy passed and was strictly enforced we would likely be saying good-bye to all those nice race clips on youtube. Because youtube would be risking shut-down for hosting copyrighted images.
My fave explanation of this thing so far – and there are lots of entertaining things out there today – is from the oatmeal: http://theoatmeal.com/sopa
~ Gavia ~
by Jen See on Jan 18, 2012 1:25 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
That's not only funny, it's effective as well.
It got me to write to my congressman and both my senators. One of them (the Republican) has tweeted that he will vote against both bills.
by GreylockGrinder on Jan 18, 2012 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
Does this country really not have more important issues to address?
"Weltmeister!!" Zwei mal: 2010-2011...und weiter gehts
Thought so
A webnerd friend of mine once told me that downloading is legal but uploading is not. The internet is being incredibly unhelpful, but I did find this:
http://www.anti-piracy.be/nl/indexb.php?n=224
Hmmm, I had a course of 'auteursrecht' 8 years ago at the Ghent University
and back then both up- and downloading were considered as illegal acts (according to my professor). Dunno if the legislation has changed since then.
I know that so far only ‘uploaders’ (i.e. pirate sites like thepiratebay) were prosecuted. Back when I stil did court reporting, I followed several of these cases, and the convictions were quite severe. Back then the downloading from these sites was an illegal act too, but the public prosecuters decided to give the ‘uploaders’ the priority (just like the posession is cannabis is illegal, but the prosecutors only prosecute dealers).
If the laws haven’t changed, it means that you’re pretty safe as a downloader, but what you’re doing is still illegal. If the public prosecuters decide to change their list of priorities, you can still be convicted for the downloading.
If PIPA comes in
in the UK there’ll be a lot of extradition hearings.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
Indeed
you need to drink ‘em before lunch so you’re sober by the time you have to drive home. Unless you’re on an early shift, than it’s drink three before 9 in the morning, which isn’t always easy, but that’s why we have light beers like Palm.
It is in NL
At least for music and films, but somehow not ‘software.’ Torrents are difficult because they also always upload at the same time. That is why Usenet is so popular in NL.
"Beer helps." -- Ant1.
Also: these 24 hours have made me realize how much I depend on wikipedia for...well...life
that site completes me
"Weltmeister!!" Zwei mal: 2010-2011...und weiter gehts
should've put a ring on it dude.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
The problem is it is with millions of others as well
talk about uncommitted
"Weltmeister!!" Zwei mal: 2010-2011...und weiter gehts
slut of a site.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
I was just feeling the opposite...
I extend a hardy “harumph” to everything Chris says above, BUT,
I could give a flip about my own accessability to Google, Wiki-anything and facebook. It wouldn’t hurt my feelings to never “have” to use those entities or the stupid internet again. You hear me craigslist? If all this dissolved tomorrow, I’d go back to doing what I did before the internet…an honest day’s work.
That's the only thing keeping me around.
Otherwise, I’m just one more stupid YouTube video away from holin’ up in a Montana cave.
The most effective way to get people to notice and turn on this bill
is to say it will affect their porn watching.
"Weltmeister!!" Zwei mal: 2010-2011...und weiter gehts
by Phil H. on Jan 18, 2012 2:25 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
People are getting their panties in a wad over nothing
SOPA is a terribly worded bill that will never get passed by Congress. On the off chance it does, it will never get signed into law by President Obama (he’s come out and said as much). On the off chance he changes his mind or the EXTREME off chance that Congress has enough votes to override a veto, it’ll never survive a court challenge.
“Protesting” this bill is like protesting a bill that would make riding a bike illegal. It’ll never, ever, ever happen.
As an aspiring writer, I very much support the intentions of the bill and hope its authors and sponsors, maybe after consulting with someone who knows just exactly what the fuck the internet actually is, write a new and actionable version. But this bill is and always was going down in flames. So things like the Wikipedia blackout, or even just the Google blackout (their site still works fine, but the logo is covered by a black bar) strike me as unnecessary pouting.
by Aly Edge on Jan 18, 2012 2:55 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I think you underestimate this
I’m sure there was a time when people said that having to undress prior to boarding an airplane could never happen. It’s best not to assume that something won’t happen just because it’s stupid.
"I’m pretty disappointed, but if this is what people want to see, a race decided on a downhill," Andy Schleck said. "I don’t think that. A finish like this should not be allowed."
You're not comparing apples to apples
TSA policies are not the result of legislation. And piracy is just a wee bit different than mass-destruction terrorism.
Perhaps, but there's still apathy there
Not caring enough to raise your voice because you think those that are raising their’s are stupid means you won’t be listened to.
I support the blackouts – I think they give folks a glimpse of what things could be like if this bill is passed and makes them take notice. And if it encourages people to write their representatives to say ‘Hey, this bill is bunk, rewrite it so it’s actually fair and actionable’ – I say mission accomplished.
I'm more concerned
that this is the loss leader, and the next one goes through. Or the next one. Or the next. Apathy at any turn would result in a bad bill eventually.
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 18, 2012 4:51 PM EST up reply actions
You are so right, apathy is dangerous.
And never write something off because it is too stupid, and no one in their right mind would ever consider voting for it. There are a lot of stupid people out there who happily will vote for a stupid law, even a law that in the end will harm themselves.
by LittleOldLady on Jan 18, 2012 6:38 PM EST up reply actions
In TX several years ago
A bill was proposed that would have banned all rides of more than 10 people.
It was backed by the farm bureau and many small towns, until organized Internet protests convinced legislators it was a bad idea.
SOPA protests are about establishing a base-line of opinion and vehemence.
by R Mc on Jan 18, 2012 3:38 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
PIPA was sailing through as of two days ago.
SOPA was smooth until backlash started (I’ve been getting emails about it for over 3 months). Obama only came out against the PIPA wording, not the SOPA wording.
P.S. I like Belgian live streams more than a worry about someone besides me also making a few bucks off of whatever I create. To put it another way, we’re all intimately overaware of the unfairness of someone profiting from our work, but we’re (most o us) far more seriously underaware of how much benefit we get from easy access to the work of others.
"It is unfortunate that the Wall is not plugged in correctly."
Know what I'm afraid of at the moment?
The thought of losing illegal live streams of euro races. I am not entirely sure how these would be affected here since it’s not US content… but the thought of not being able to watch Flanders? SHUDDER.
I NEED MOAR MUD
If you look at a site like sports-livez.com former (bvvl.be) that site has only one purpose:
performing illegal activities (under Belgian laws).
If the Belgian authorities would have found the owners of the site, the owners risked severe convictions. That’ probably why it changed from a .be site to a .com site.
Well yeah
If your site only exists to house illegal content and you make it readily known that that’s the case…you could get in trouble. That’s kind of asking for it, though.
If something similar to this bill were enacted into law (because this bill won’t be) I have no doubt I’d have to make some small sacrifices as a result. But I would rest easier knowing that if I ever have the amazing good fortune to get one of my screenplays made into a movie, even if just by a small local production house, chances are much greater that I’d be paid for my YEARS of work. Call me selfish, but that’s kind of important to me.
But I don't get that argument
Screenwriters are paid for their work without SOPA – after all, people can only pirate things after they’ve been made! And the current state of events doesn’t stop eg films making profits – this is wanting them to make more profit!
Aka Pigeons!
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 18, 2012 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
It's all cumulative
Piracy drops box office grosses. Falling box office grosses means everyone gets paid less.
Is there sited evidence for this? I'm just curious because it seems like conventional wisdom to me
without numbers behind it
by Vlaanderen90 on Jan 18, 2012 7:56 PM EST up reply actions
I guess maybe there could be some figures about how much screenwriters are paid, over time, pre- and post- internet?
But it would be hard to prove that the internet was the only factor – even harder to prove that if profits went up on a film, the larger profits would be divided among the different creators…. After all, it seems that when a small, cheap film becomes a huge hit, unless the screenwriter has a percentage-of-profits deal (do they?) then the company that made it don’t go back to them and give them more money…
Aka Pigeons!
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 19, 2012 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
The fallacy is that it's not a zero sum game.
People who would never have heard of a work, let alone seen it, now are more likely to encounter it. Word of mouth is good, and may mean more “real” sales. I know, some people are more worried about others profiting from them, than from their own bottom line. Others, if their own bottom line is improving, they’re willing to consider the pirated stuff as “independent adverts.” You don’t make money from it, but you don’t spend a cent to pay for the greater exposure (unlike just about any other form of advert).
"It is unfortunate that the Wall is not plugged in correctly."
my brother-in-law was in band in the napster era
true story:
the first week their cd was released, their manager sits ’em down with the “good news, bad news” message:
bad news, cd had sold way less than estimated (I forget exact number).
good news: it was the number 1 download on napster.
i think the whole music download thing
is way more of a problem for the labels than the bands. artists make peanuts off record sales. concerts is where the money really comes from. a million illegal downloads instead of records being bought might cost them $10k, but generate $100k in extra concert revenue (numbers pulled out of my ass). from the record company’s point of view though, it’s probably more like $750k in lost revenue. maybe the next CD will sell better, but that’s purely speculative.
(warning – anecdotal evidence/retrogrouch rant ahead) i’m over the whole digital music thing anyway. i used to have 100s of gigs of mp3s, but i never listened to them. they sound like shit, especially through computer speakers. same goes with itunes. never have and never will buy some bullshit mp3 version of a song with ridiculous (in my opinion) drm. nowadays, i just youtube shit that i hear about (and i don’t care if it’s a legal video or not) and if i like it i buy the record. i like getting something physical for my money. something i can pass on (i’ve inherited records, try doing that with an itune collection) or lend to friends. in a way it connects different generations’ music, expands everyone’s musical horizons, which can only be good for the music industry. now they’re trying as hard as they can to make that impossible and bitch when people try to do as they’ve always done (remember double cassette decks, those would probably be illegal under sopa). but back to the illegal content, take away those illegal youtube music videos and odds are i won’t hear about your band and you won’t sell me a record. also, records often come with a free digital download. never once have i taken advantage of it. other than the fact that i’d rather listen to the music on turntables, i don’t want those labels getting their dirty little drm infected fingers into my computer. i give you money for you to do as you please with, you give me record for me to do as i please with, and that’s the end of that transaction. (end music retrogrouch rant)
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Some research, that I found plausible back then
And I still do, though I lost interest in this topic a couple of years ago.
Further inspection, however, reveals that it is unrealistic to believe that the effects of file sharing are constant across all artists as the costs and benefits of file sharing differ with the ex ante popularity of the artist. This suggest that ex ante unknown artists are likely to see more positive overall effects of file sharing than ex ante popular artists are. By adopting an estimation procedure which allows for the effect to vary according to measures of artist popularity, I find that file sharing has had strong effects on the sales of music. In particular, new artists and ex ante relatively unknown artists are seen to benefit from the existence of their songs on file sharing networks, while ex ante popular artists suffer for it.
David Blackburn, On-line Piracy and Recorded Music Sales.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Jan 19, 2012 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
makes sense
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Yep
Though then you get into arguments about thresholds of popularity…
Also, we’re hardly seeing Beyonce or whoever begging in the streets. Yet.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
ant1:
i don’t want those labels getting their dirty little drm infected fingers into my computer. i give you money for you to do as you please with, you give me record for me to do as i please with, and that’s the end of that transaction.
Quite. This’ll worry me even more once the e-book becomes absolutely necessary, if does.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
ebooks
the day they stop selling new books in some sort of physical form will be the day i stop reading new books. i just don’t get the appeal. i may be old beyond my years.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
I get the appeal
if you’re on the road a lot and don’t have much excess to bookstores – my friend is living in western Africa and he loves his Kindle. But beyond that, it’s ‘real’ books all the way.
he should try this place
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
i had thought the same. until i could no longer hold a book. now, i'd never be without my kindle. except for the books that aren't in e-format yet.
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
My problem with that anecdote
is the “way less than expected”. Expected by whom, precisely? On what basis?
Through various Sheffield connections I vaguely know some of the people who were involved in the whole Arctic Monkeys thing. When their first cd came out, even though loads of people had had the tracks for ages, people still queued up – yes, queued up – to buy it.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
this is the kind of mentality
that made jukeboxes illegal in france a long time ago -the artist isn’t going to get paid everytime someone listens to his song, so we should make it illegal. Ugh. Talk about misguided legislation.
Quite. The feeds are ephemeral but we generally go to the same sources to get them.
Cycling feeds are probably an excellent example of piracy (so-called) as market failure.
But I don’t think you can have it both ways. If you’re in favour of the aims of SOPA you should probably desist from watching Sporza on a dodgy stream.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
The stupid thing re feeds, is that if there was an option to eg pay for Sporza, or RAI, I probably would
When I watch cycling streams, I’m doing it because I * can’t * pay to see CX/the Giro Donne etc!
Aka Pigeons!
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 18, 2012 5:49 PM EST up reply actions
ayup. use to be that rai-international and tve-international showed a bunch of races (in addition to the giro and vuelta, respectively), but, no longer.
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
ezactly
Read an extended comment earlier today – sorry, can’t remember where – about this point about market-failure. If the content is easy to access and pay for, many people will pay. But if it’s not? They turn, er, pirate.
~ Gavia ~
Eurosport player.
I paid for this for three years. Last year, for some reason, it simply would not renew. After a couple of attempts & a couple of unanswered emails I decided not to bothered.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
I keep paying for ES Player, a product that is 75 % useless to me
and then I watch the pirate feeds as they provide a better and more reliable version of what the player is supposed to provide.
Well, when I did pay for it that was generally the case.
To be clear, I would pay for it if they would let me.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
I did that with CTV
Seriously, we’re watching the sporza ads. And it’s not like sporza has to pay extra to extend their broadcast range. Neither they nor their advertisers suffer in any way. They quite likely benefit, as does Belgium in a small way (how many of us have gone there, and spent our tourist dollars, in the last couple of years?)
"It is unfortunate that the Wall is not plugged in correctly."
I have and will continue to support Belgium
The second greatest country in the world.
(Don’t worry Holland, you’re in the top 10)
All I've had today is, like, six gummy bears and some scotch.
Indeed
I may or may not know people who download/pirate things illegally and many of them pay for additional services to make it easier to conduct these activities. One of the broader issues is in content aggregation (being able to get most everything from one source) and pricing (subscription vs per item and actual costs being high comparatively). The people I know would happily pay a monthly subscription for access to content. Really the model is comparable to cable tv but via stream or download.
One of the other myths is that every download or stream viewed is a payment lost, which simply isn’t true. People download a lot more ‘speculative’ options than they’d actually pay for and it’s why I think you’d do better with a subscription model.
In Australia it’s estimated that 25% of the population have at some point downloaded a tv show. That works out to approximately 1 million homes. If they all payed $50 a month to download/stream whatever, whenever you’d have a $600 million a year business on subscription alone. But you’d expect most of the population to convert which means you could easily have a $2bn a year business. Although you’d simultaneously put every broadcaster in the country out of business, and they’ve got lobbying bucks right now.
So here we are.
I'm not just a smartarse. Other parts of me are sometimes clever as well.
by omnevelnihil on Jan 18, 2012 10:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The whole point is that the entire site could be blocked, based on any one of those many streams.
Someone throws a fit about the soccer? We lose the cycling. In fact, browsers and search engines are required (!) to return blank results for “hits” that would bring us back to the site, and to sister sites sharing the same domain (or by some readings, even the same physical server). Enforceable? Probably not. Too much lawyer money for any but the largest sites and providers to fight? Probably. Bad to cut down the internet to only those with mega money for lawyers, in case of a fight, and insurance? Yes m’am, very bad.
"It is unfortunate that the Wall is not plugged in correctly."
Adding, I am completely in favor of intentions of this bill, completely against mechanisms and wording.
I NEED MOAR MUD
by Douglas Ansel on Jan 18, 2012 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think the aims misdiagnose the problem, myself.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
The CIA may be able to find Bin Laden
but they will never find the illegal steams!
"Weltmeister!!" Zwei mal: 2010-2011...und weiter gehts
i think the fact that a lot of stuff isn't us content is partly why this bill was written
since they can’t go after offshore illegal content providers, such as pirate bay, they’re going after the people/sites that bring them to these shores. they figure you’d be a lot less likely to get to pirate bay if google never showed links to it in search results. a shoot the messenger approach of sorts.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
you forgot the idiot part
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Actually, according to the bill, they "can"
Which is why it will never pass. SOPA gives the US government carte blanche to police the internet.
so it would give them power to shut down sites from other sovereign countries?
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Effectively shut down
because they could block all access and traffic through US systems.
"Beer helps." -- Ant1.
Not sure that's a shut down, except from the US POV?
Surely there must be nodes, mirrors etc that would let all the rest of the world remain connected (and see what’s what), and turn only the US into a bit of an information backwater?
"It is unfortunate that the Wall is not plugged in correctly."
So much of the internet goes via the US, though, one way or another.
& they key means of accessing info tend to be US-based. I don’t doubt a new infrastructure could be set up but I don’t think it would replace or replicate the existing structure if a lot of damage was done.
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
Let's think about the logic of this.
In the US, many cars go really fast. (Zoom! Zoom!) Cars going fast lead to high-speed collisions. (Aieee! Crunch!) High-speed collisions lead to thousands of deaths each year. ()
The SOPA solution to this problem is to either close the road and remove it from the maps/your GPS, or to ban the manufacturers of cars that go faster than 70mph (the top legal speed in most of the US).
Are the roads the problems? The cars? If you and I both drive the same car, but our recklessness varies widely, is it the car’s fault?
"His grandma must have been a sight to see on the descents." - Jens
or shutting down the postal service
cause people use it to ship illegal things.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
by ant1 on Jan 18, 2012 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
at least that's my understanding.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
(as an unconnected aside, I've always been confused about why
in eg the UK, there’s a top speed limit of whatever-it-actually is, and cars are sold that can drive, I dunno, 150 mph faster than that limit….)
Aka Pigeons!
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 18, 2012 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
Some cars come with governors
Keep them from going above a certain speed.
I think for the most part though, if the engine is big enough to give that sports car pep, it’s therefore big enough to go well over the speed limit.
"Oh man, it’s going to take days to kill all these people!"
mostly, cars can be driven on private roads/tracks
and you never know when you might have to outrun an avalanche (emergencies).
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Heh, I'm imagining avalanches in the Netherlands...
Dikes bursting, maybe?
Aka Pigeons!
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 18, 2012 5:51 PM EST up reply actions
If you could somehow stand to the side
as the lava and the avalanche crash into one another, that would solve a lot of your problems.
Hmm, true
You are wise. If we could have another stream of lava to crash with the flood, we’d be left with rock and steam, right?
you have time for Alchemy as well as PdC?
and beer? Impressed!
"It is unfortunate that the Wall is not plugged in correctly."
I guess that's not an issue in the UK!
Only a (relatively) tiny handful of people use private tracks…. speeding on the motorway, on the other hand….!
Aka Pigeons!
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 18, 2012 5:50 PM EST up reply actions
Well almost every car can go faster than the speed limit
just the engine capability of the vehicle. Those cars who can go 220mph are bought because they have 800bhp and can go 0-60 in 3 seconds and not because owners intend to actually do 220. Although surely they will go faster than the speed limit, which has to be the most ignored law in every country.
"Weltmeister!!" Zwei mal: 2010-2011...und weiter gehts
This is another dumb - but genuine - question (I'm not a driver)
What’s the need to go from 0-60 in 3 seconds? I get the driving away from emergencies thing, but how much of a difference would it really make? Whenever I see, about 0-60, I always wonder what kinds of roads the diver is on where they have the space to do that – but that could be because of living in the UK, rather than places like the USA or Australia, with lots of space!
(Sincere Qs, that I have wondered about for ages, just never enough to look up answers to!)
Aka Pigeons!
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 18, 2012 6:38 PM EST up reply actions
merging onto highways/roads
passing people, the feeling of getting pushed back into your seat, impressing fellow 18 yr old males, getting out of the way in a hurry if something’s about to hit you, beating other 18 yr old males off the line…
some reasons are practical, some are plain stupid and some are similar to why i want carbon rims on my bike. i’ve known quite a few people that have fast cars/bikes that take them out to the track regularly. i’m sure they drive too fast on the road also, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a valid use for the performance.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
0-60 is just the most practical way of measuring acceleration from a stop
there is no actual need to have such a powerful car, supercars are more symbols of wealth than anything else. But I think for a driver there is nothing more exciting than a car with massive acceleration, not saying it’s always wise or safe, but that feeling is amazing.
"Weltmeister!!" Zwei mal: 2010-2011...und weiter gehts
Because
it’s awesome. But 99.99% of the time it’s a bad idea.
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 18, 2012 11:15 PM EST up reply actions
Glimpse of the future?
If you’re wondering what a post-SOPA future might look like (in its best-case form), go to the TDU stage 1 live thread and click on the overhead replay of the finish. Kinda spooky to see that today.
Of course, in the worst case version, you don’t even get that page, because YouTube is blocked at the Domain Name Server (DNS) level.
"His grandma must have been a sight to see on the descents." - Jens
From the UK, it's been really interesting looking at this
Because it’s one of those things where “the internet” is international, servers might not be located in the USA, but we’re likely to have what we can see worldwide policed by the USA – it’s a real wtf moment
Aka Pigeons!
well & I think the extradition threat would be real
"I’m hoping for the Mortirolo-Gavia combination, then we can ride down to Bormio for ice cream." Emma Pooley on the Giro Donne
"There are a zillion shitheads on the internet these days posting illegal streams and photos for their own profit"
So does that make us shitheads for consuming vast amounts of illegal race streams?
"Oh man, it’s going to take days to kill all these people!"
They may be shitheads
but gosh darnit they are my shitheads! They make me function!
"Weltmeister!!" Zwei mal: 2010-2011...und weiter gehts
Different
What are your choices? They’re not the same as someone who posts feeds from obscure channels in order to have a website where they run ads and make some money. Am thinking more about soccer ATM. Cycling, I dunno. Mostly the choice is between a pirate stream or not watching at all, because nobody bothered to make the video available to us legally.
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 18, 2012 11:17 PM EST up reply actions
Looks largely like alarmist bullshit to me.
Everyone jumps on the worst case scenario—“They’ll shut down innocent sites if a user posts one single copyrighted image and the webmaster doesn’t notice!”
Unlikely.
On the other hand, do you know how hard it is to get sites that exist solely for piracy shut down? Let me sum it up for you: you can’t.
The best you can do is monitor them and request for your own copyrighted material to be taken down. And monitor them some more, because someone will post it again as soon as your back is turned. Eventually, you just stop looking, because you don’t want to know.
Maybe the bills need tweaking, but yeah. I’m among those worried that shooting them down completely will stop any actually useful and effective legislation from going through.
Luxembourg is very close to Belgium--Frank Schleck
useful/effective legislation by a bought and sold Congress with an issue such as this is next to impossible
by Vlaanderen90 on Jan 18, 2012 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
+1
Listening to some of the people that would be voting on this- it’s clear that they have no understanding of what it is they are voting on. But hey, if someone’s willing to give them a hefty campaign contribtion, then that’s how they’ll vote.
"I’m pretty disappointed, but if this is what people want to see, a race decided on a downhill," Andy Schleck said. "I don’t think that. A finish like this should not be allowed."
The US Constitution was innovative wrt to IP rights
by passing a print copyright law to foster the development of US literature—and, as it turned out, it tended to make English writers more widely read in the US than US authors, and for cheaper, because there was no international copyright.
I think the international copyright law was implemented in 1891—after Washington Irving and several others started lobbying for it in the 1830s.
Also, the notions of plagiarism that we take for granted now do not coincide with notions of fair use etc as adjudicated in the nineteenth-century in US and UK courts.
And, then there’s the nearly century-long process of authors being able to assert that THEY owned the rights to a work once they sold it to a publisher: which is why Milton’s 5-pound sale of the copyright to Paradise Lost was such a big deal.
The point is, it took nearly 300 years to get the details of IP rights with print worked out . . .
So
things move faster today. I give us 200 years and we’ll have this nailed down.
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 18, 2012 5:55 PM EST up reply actions
Nah
By then we’ll all be projecting RVV on the inside of our eyelids.
(yes, I’ll still be around in 2212)
(go rambaldi)
well, Sui? where are you?
take the case of a film or music recording: there’s not just one IP claim there, now is there?
You’ve got composition, performance, production, distribution . . . the Internet problem involves the removal of most barriers to distribution and re-distribution, right?
Point is that this proposal circumvents law and police
Corporations will be the law, ISPs the police.
"Beer helps." -- Ant1.
by tedvdw on Jan 18, 2012 5:54 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
One added twist
here in the US. Many people’s ISP is a cable company, which is in turn owned by corporations that also product content. Comcast, for ex., the US’s biggest residential ISP, also owns NBC-Universal.
~ Gavia ~
Tweaking?
The heart of the bill is rotten. Media companies have learned that shutting down websites is hard and expensive. Their solution? Push the enforcement costs onto others (ISPs, search engines) and take away due process.
My company has IP issues. You know what we do? We pay a lot of money to sue people. We don’t ask congress to break the Internet.
"Oh man, it’s going to take days to kill all these people!"
Reminder: some of us don't have a lot of money to sue people.
I’m reading the full text of the bill right now, to see what it actually says…
Luxembourg is very close to Belgium--Frank Schleck
Okay, I read the act.
What it’s aimed at are non-US sites that are dedicated to the theft of US intellectual property. Sites that, if they were based in the US, would be shut down because they’re illegal in the US. Since they aren’t in the US and nobody in the US can therefore shut them down, access to the US would be blocked instead.
I’m not seeing where it’s a threat to Wikipedia, or even to YouTube (which routinely takes down clips that violate copyright). Certainly not to Podium Cafe. Anyone?
Luxembourg is very close to Belgium--Frank Schleck
i'm no expert on anything, but
just because a bill is aimed at something, does not mean it will not be used for other things. look at the patriot act. it is designed to keep us safe from the terrorists. look up how many patriot act based arrest have been made, how many were made for terrorism related things, and how many have been made for drug related things. scary.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Which portions of the bill do you personally see as vulnerable to misuse?
Luxembourg is very close to Belgium--Frank Schleck
But the main focus of these laws is that any site that contains a mere link to another site, itself responsible for some infringing activity, is in the legal cross-hairs. The site can essentially be shut down — court orders can be obtained requiring the site’s service provider to block U.S. citizens from accessing the site.
This falls neatly under the heading of “alarmist bullshit.” The language in the bill specifies “sites dedicated to the theft of U.S. property.” Nobody is going to bother going after a site that has a link to a site that has a link. Why would they? Who has time for that?
You know how much we love those "Community" animated gifs? Well a tumblr page hosting those gifs could get shut down. Worse yet, all sites linking to that page, also get shut down. Bye-bye Pajiba. We write a news article merely linking to some other site that has posted a leaked trailer, or post a trailer not realizing it was "leaked" and not "official?" Again, bye-bye Pajiba.
This is just utter bullshit—Pajiba.com is not a foreign site. It is based in Portland, Maine. There are already laws in place that deal with US sites.
And that’s as far as I read.
Luxembourg is very close to Belgium--Frank Schleck
Is linking from US sites to (supposedly) infringing sites already covered by US law?
In any case, I don’t think your practical and sensible interpretation is shared by many corporate lawyers, especially ones with deep pockets. If there is any possibility for profitable abuse, abuse they will.
"Beer helps." -- Ant1.
Under both bills, the definitions of what is a “site dedicated” to “infringement” or “theft of US property” are pretty broad and open to abuse. While supporters of the bills love to insist they’re narrowly tailored, a simple look at PIPA shows that’s wrong. It notes that you can be dedicated to infringement if the key service you offer facilitates infringement. Think about that for a second. Pretty much every user generated content site or communication tool… or… computer, can “facilitate” infringement. Now, supporters of the bill insist that most sites are safe because the bill says that there’s “no significant use other than… enabling or facilitating” infringement. But, again, note they’re not saying that it has no significant use other than infringement. It says no significant use other than enabling or facilitating infringement. That’s pretty much the entire internet there. A site may only rarely be used to infringe, but its primary function can still ‘facilitate’ infringement.
"Beer helps." -- Ant1.
It's a moving target. The versions (and text) keep changing.
PIPA is not the same as SOPA, either.
"It is unfortunate that the Wall is not plugged in correctly."
the lack of due process mainly
granted my understanding is based on what i’ve read from others, not reading the bill myself, but from what i understand, if a site is hosted pirated content it can get shut down. it doesn’t have charges brought against it, given a chance to make a plea, go through a trial, and then have a sentence applied.
i also don’t like the part about being able to tell other sites what they may or may not link to. to me that’s similar to saying i’m not allowed to travel to china because they don’t respect our copyrights. it’s killing freedon in the name of stopping possible copyright infringements. what if i want to go to some cycling stream site to see what races are on and at what time?
using pdc as an example, most of our live threads would be grounds for shutting the place down. seems to me to be a lot like me going to jail for telling someone where the nearest crackhouse is, whether i’m telling them so that they can buy drugs or just so that they can avoid the area on their weekly ride.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
I don't see how foreign sites can be prosecuted under US law, so not sure how due process would apply.
And the sites can’t be shut down—they’re foreign sites, the US can’t shut them down. It can, though, block access to the US.
PdC could not be shut down under this act. No site can be shut down under this act. SBNation, as best as I can tell, is based in the US, so the act doesn’t apply to us at all.
It seems that most of the outrage out there is knee-jerk editorializing about shit that has nothing to do with the act.
I get cranky about internet piracy. My books get pirated. I don’t like it. I am biased. But I also get cranky about shit getting blown out of proportion even if it doesn’t apply directly to me, so I’m doubly irritated tonight. So, I’m bowing out before I get even crankier.
Luxembourg is very close to Belgium--Frank Schleck
It is not (solely) directed at non-US sites
The new thing the act brings to the table is action against sites “enabling or facilitating copyright infringement” and promising immunity to those who, upon learning of such vague and broad practices, will immediately remove/disable/blacklist the alleged offenders. And of course, to avoid possible costly litigation, that will generally happen. Poof, gone from search engines, shazam, onto ISP blacklists.
"Beer helps." -- Ant1.
Well, the US is also applying heavy pressure to get other countries to change their laws too
And foreign companies have due process as well. Imagine if you were a French yogurt maker and you decided to enter the US market and sell your yogurt.
Do you think your due process would be served if a US yogurt maker filled a complaint against your company and then you could no longer sell no longer your yogurt? And remember, there’s no trial. There’s no lawsuit. The US Attorney General just bans your yogurt.
Would you call that due process? Do you consider that a fair business practice?
Well, what if you are a French website that a US website (which also sells access to content) decides yours is dedicated to copyright infringement? The US website could fill a complaint against your company and your US customers could no longer access your website. Without a trial. Without a law suit.
And to the “will they abuse this” argument, under the DMCA content owners can file requests to have infringing content taken down. Content owners repeatedly abuse the process – filing takedown requests for content they don’t own, content that isn’t even remotely connected to content they own. And that’s even considering the loss from society from content owners issuing takedown notices for content that they own but that is clearly used under fair use exceptions.
"Oh man, it’s going to take days to kill all these people!"
If you can make that distinction clearly enough
(and my experience says you probably can) then that’s worth pursuing. Not sure this is the vehicle, but I am open to debate.
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 18, 2012 11:20 PM EST up reply actions
WEll
this is a tedious subject but I appreciate having a vigorous debate here. With pirate saunas.
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 18, 2012 11:21 PM EST reply actions
Also, am I the only one who got a little bit giddy
at the prospect of a temporary, single-issue-only exception to the no politics rule? This is like the time we were allowed to sit down during one of the hymns in church.
I'm not just a smartarse. Other parts of me are sometimes clever as well.
by omnevelnihil on Jan 18, 2012 11:25 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
This is 501(c)4 not 527-like "politics"
(issues, not parties or candidates)
"It is unfortunate that the Wall is not plugged in correctly."
yep, don't think i've seen one mention of a political party
in almost 200 comments.
damn we’re good.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Boo anti-federalists!
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 20, 2012 10:57 PM EST up reply actions
AHhhhh
Vshare is all of a sudden not available in my country. And they shut down megaupload, so why exactly do they need more regulation? Now give me back my vshare! They had good quality streams!
"Weltmeister!!" Zwei mal: 2010-2011...und weiter gehts
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Celebrate the Giro d'Italia at Podium Cafe!
Check our Giro Section for race updates, on-the-scene reports, and other hijinx.
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
