Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[No1]

Any action that is not "close eyes and hope it goes away" is a good action. It does not really matters how likely it is to pass, any chance above 0% is bad and therefore something has to be done. Saying that it might not have any effect is besides the point as well, this is a threat to the freedom of speech and the nature of the Internet. I'm not saying that piracy is a "right", rather saying that because knives hurt people there shouldn't be a law saying that every knife is illegal.

[Capntastic]

Any action that is not "close eyes and hope it goes away" is a good action.

Pretty much.  Quake's assertions indicate he feels that it's not worth taking a stand against something that could completely ruin your livelihood until it's more of an immediate threat.  This completely ignores the fact that often times when things get to that stages, one has less options in dealing with it.  Just because something doesn't personally affect you, or hasn't affected you yet, is not reason enough to think that it's not worth acting against.

[QuakeIV]

Definitely messy.

Anyhow my point is that I personally don't think that wikipedia's actions are justified, as I think too much force is used.  However that is mostly based off of personal preferences when it comes to how paranoid you should be when combating threats. 

SOPA is not worth considering yet IMO.  It is still outside the direct influence of anyone other than the committee members.

I am also still convinced that PIPA is not a threat.  In response to No1, PIPA is more like throwing murderers in jail as opposed to banning knives altogether.

[Azure]

So uh, I'm being alarmist for complaining about one of my favorite webcomic and wikipedia being cut off?

The one bill that actually has a fighting chance isn't pro corporate, isn't abhorrent, and the other isn't even close to worth such drastic action.

By the way its generally considered drastic to cut off your service entirely.

Also I wont be mailing my senator over the loss of a webcomic page, I will be thinking the webcomic author is an idiot.

SOPA, PIPA, and the third i always forget are essentially taking the already overpowered dmca and pro-ip acts and making seizures even easier. Look up Dajaz1. The dude was one of those hip-hop music bloggers that shares music to get new artists some exposure. Despite being sent the clips by the artists the ICE seized his site for a year. A whole friggen year. Go ahead and lookup all the dmca abuses and then ask yourself why should they be given a bigger gun when they already can't get it right. A good dmca example is the megaupload vid. Universal kept taking it down despite it not being their IP.

Either way the MPAA RIAA et. al. will keep working on getting more powers via ratcheting and persistence.

[Zealous]

It is important to consider what is the right course of action though... Tactics are an important element in how effective an effort is. Too much aggression too quickly, and you lose balance and your own momentum will be used against you. On the other hand, too little effort and anything you attempt will simply be ineffective. However, I'm inclined to suspect that when in doubt a heavy-handed approach stands a better chance of succeeding than subterfuge. I back Wikipedia's play on those grounds, though perhaps their timing could have been better.

Oh, and one more thing: any bill which gives those who already have power more power is bad news for everybody else. It doesn't matter which of these clowns get their way, it isn't good news.

[Ghills]

Anyhow my point is that I personally don't think that wikipedia's actions are justified, as I think too much force is used.

Huh?  How on earth is Wikipedia using force? 

They've stopped providing a service.  That's not force.  Feel free to disagree with it, but don't call it something it's not.

SOPA is not worth considering yet IMO.  It is still outside the direct influence of anyone other than the committee members.

I am also still convinced that PIPA is not a threat.  In response to No1, PIPA is more like throwing murderers in jail as opposed to banning knives altogether.

You are obviously underinformed about these bills and their history.  The Senate Majority leader is trying to ram a vote on PIPAthrough in 6 days (he may have backed down on that since the main backers are distancing themselves, but last I saw there was no official announcements changing the Senate agenda).  SOPA hasn't had any actual status change, just a lot of PR announcements. These bills are a definite, immediate threat to Internet security & privacy.  I know I sound alarmist when I say that, but, you know, the truth is kind of alarming.   

[QuakeIV]

Interesting.  I think some additional restrictions would be in order to ensure that temporary closure is impossible if the owner of the music in any way gave permission for such use.

There don't appear to have been restrictions applied to avoid what you are talking about.

Anyways at risk of being ripped to shreds I'm pulling out of this thread due to mental exhaustion.  In other words I feel lethargic from processing all of these statements and then not actively trolling people in response.

I withdraw my support from PIPA, as I didn't think of problems like what Azure brought up.  Though his example may not be entirely legit, I can easily see that being taken advantage of.

Also, Ghills, wikipedia is using force like anyone else would, by creatively using what power they have to project their influence into other fields.  Its pretty basic.  You kill all the farmers if they don't use their ability to create food for you, etc.

[Mel_Vixen]

Even if SOPA/PIPA/ACTA arent that "bad" on the first glance what do you think will happen in 1, 5 or 10 years? Generally its that ones such laws are passed they open a passage for argument. We in Germany had a similiar discussion on "Banning" sides with Childporn and Terrorism and it was said that only those sides there to be blocked. Anyway pretty soon other interest groups sprung on the wagon, our RIA/MPAA like organisations demanded that for copyright infringement there should be bans and then come along people that wanted blocks for other stuff etc. etc. Thankfully the protests here axed this law for the time being.

So imagine these things are passed? What then? Are you thinking politicians are ever going to revoke those laws? Hell no, that would make look them weak and giving into the demands of "Pirates", "Thiefs", "Rapers", "Terrorists". Instead they go on extending this bull, taking money from interrest groups and what not that want more and more control over content. Why? Because it shows muscle, actionism. How many parts of the population would be for revoking penalties on drug use and ownership? How many part would be for harsher penalties? Joe average is happy when a Weed-junkie is prison while he can keep drinking his 6t can of beer because he feels "safer" now while he searches for the keys of the car. 

And while we are at why not just ban some webpages that are not conforming with the Government/regime? Do you realy think everyone in any Government is good enough to do not just that? SOPA and co are a very handy excuse.

edit:

Oh and Laying of SOPA does not mean it is never to come back. This a test-balloon tactic. You propose a very harsh law and you get opposed or not. If not you are lucky, if you are, you are not in any trouble at all. Just wait a couple of weeks the population will be feed up on hearing all that is perciefed as "whining". If there are still problems and resistance you can water the Law down and then down again as often as you like. Moist laws are tailored in a way that most of is just extra-miles after the real goal. And heck you can still count on some Nutjob wanting to profilate him/herself as "strong" and "acting" in the eye of the voter.

edit 2: i am sorry for ranting this much.

[Crioca]

Anyone who thinks the Wikipedia blackout isn't justified needs to either get some perspective or be repeatedly beaten up-side the head with a ☼cluestick☼ until the stupid leaks out.

This isn't some kind of "Activism gone wild" or anything of the sort. SOPA/PIPA directly threaten the existence of a site like Wikipedia both directly through blacklisting and blocking and indirectly, by placing a massive cost burden on a site that runs off donations. They're acting out of self defence and self preservation, and they're trying to do so before this legislation reaches the point where it can just be rammed through no matter the amount of public outcry.

[Svarte Troner]

Drats, guess I'll have to "read" Wikipedia español for a few more hours.

[Stargrasper]

It is important to consider what is the right course of action though... Tactics are an important element in how effective an effort is. Too much aggression too quickly, and you lose balance and your own momentum will be used against you. On the other hand, too little effort and anything you attempt will simply be ineffective. However, I'm inclined to suspect that when in doubt a heavy-handed approach stands a better chance of succeeding than subterfuge. I back Wikipedia's play on those grounds, though perhaps their timing could have been better.

Oh, and one more thing: any bill which gives those who already have power more power is bad news for everybody else. It doesn't matter which of these clowns get their way, it isn't good news.

An Escaped Lunatic with one single post...but registered about two weeks ago...  The forums are visible to non-members.  The only real reason to register is to post...and your username can be taken to mean something.  I really hope you aren't somebody's alt because that individual felt that he or she could not freely express his or her views.

Anyone who thinks the Wikipedia blackout isn't justified needs to either get some perspective or be repeatedly beaten up-side the head with a ☼cluestick☼ until the stupid leaks out.

This isn't some kind of "Activism gone wild" or anything of the sort. SOPA/PIPA directly threaten the existence of a site like Wikipedia both directly through blacklisting and blocking and indirectly, by placing a massive cost burden on a site that runs off donations. They're acting out of self defence and self preservation, and they're trying to do so before this legislation reaches the point where it can just be rammed through no matter the amount of public outcry.

You shouldn't be so violent.  Threatening others because they don't agree with your position is irrational and damaging your credibility.  Again, you said nothing that hadn't already been said.

Drats, guess I'll have to "read" Wikipedia español for a few more hours.

Both this thread and Wikipedia tell you how to bypass that!

[Chaos Armor]

I have a question, as I do not have the time right now to read an article I would like to ask what Congress is defining as "Piracy" and the such? Are they taking it to mean that if someone goes to Google types in "Penguin" finds an image copy's it, pastes it then uses it for a Forum Game, then that's piracy or are they meaning a bigger offense.

[G-Flex]

What defines a substantial offense (when it comes to copyright law) is pretty much always up in the air. Sure, using a copyrighted image without permission for something like that might be copyright infringement, or it might be minor enough to constitute fair use.

Drats, guess I'll have to "read" Wikipedia español for a few more hours.

Or follow their instructions to disable the blackout screen.

[bombzero]

I dont see it passing in a sane world, un fucking fortunately we dont live in a sane world, we live in a world run by money and greed. welcome to real life, i say 10 to 1 it passes and youtube, wikipedia, and pretty much every other source of entertainment and information gets fucked in the ass.

its not an anti-piracy act. heres a fun fact, Pirate means individual who defies law, therefore, anti-piracy law is a stupid idea, a it will happen anyways.

and this 'anti-piracy' bill has alot of sketchy fine print that would give corporations and government ALOT of power over media.

[Stargrasper]

Copyright Law contains a Fair Use clause that allows you to use copyrighted material under certain circumstances.  I think your example use is probably illegal but realistically ignored.  Look at those four numbered points, though.  Due to the purpose of use, it may be considered legal.  The nature of the work and substantiality of the work may help.  Again, the law is really hazy on this kind of thing...the authorities could reasonably argue almost anything.

Here's what the law actually says...Section 107 through 122 seem to talk about limitations of exclusive rights...I'm so not reading all of that right now.  Section 107 is the one that really counts.

§107 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining
whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to
be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if
such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors