- Location
- Brooklyn, NY
Hey are we joining the internet boycott tomorrow against SOPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act)? I know some other forums are going to and I think Google just joined in also. Just curious....
SOPA Blackout
- Thread starter Gwiz3005
- Start date
- Location
- Brooklyn, NY
nah to reject it.
I found the wiki page slightly confusing, but from what I read the govt wants to better protect intellectual property (on the WWW)
You are against people's right to protect what they created and brought to the market place?
You are against people's right to protect what they created and brought to the market place?
- Location
- Kings Park, NY
- Location
- Kings Park, NY
Works fine for me??
It's not about being against a person's right to protect what they have created. It's about keeping the Gov't from taking control of something else they should keep their hands off of...
It's not about being against a person's right to protect what they have created. It's about keeping the Gov't from taking control of something else they should keep their hands off of...
It sounds like a good idea but in practice it could be very draconian.
One concern is that a domain can be shutdown because there is a link to another website with copyrighted material. On one persons insistence and without a complete investigation.
I accept there is copyright infringement and intellectual property theft is illegal. I believe they should go after that not invent new ways to control media.
One concern is that a domain can be shutdown because there is a link to another website with copyrighted material. On one persons insistence and without a complete investigation.
I accept there is copyright infringement and intellectual property theft is illegal. I believe they should go after that not invent new ways to control media.
- Location
- Bay ridge, Brooklyn
That's a good read explaining what sopa can do to internet http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/technology/sopa_explained/index.htm
I am for the bills.
If i were to allow or aid someone in committing a murder, i would be held accountable. So, sites that help copyright infringement should be held accountable as well.
Why do ppl think they are entilted to free music/movies/tv downloads?
If i were to allow or aid someone in committing a murder, i would be held accountable. So, sites that help copyright infringement should be held accountable as well.
Why do ppl think they are entilted to free music/movies/tv downloads?
I agree with your intentions, but the ramification of the bills is really what's scaring the internet community.
The Washington Post has a nice article highlighting some of the concerns. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...sopa-and-pipa/2012/01/18/gIQAbDG67P_blog.html
(note #5.. Copyright holders already have the power to take down offending material.)
Here's a disturbing story about what our government can already do with current legislation:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...r-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml
- Location
- Brooklyn
You're one of those guys that thought Vietnam was a good idea in theory too, right?
- Location
- Rockland County NY
Think of it this way. If someone links from here to their separate blog about reefkeeping, and in that blog they use some background music from band "X" without proper credentials, they can block people in the US from accessing both sites.
Bye bye facebook, twitter, and youtube as well. The bill gives the ability to block sites, both domestic and foreign with a very general guideline. That means almost any site is on the table for censoring.
Not good in my opinion.
Bye bye facebook, twitter, and youtube as well. The bill gives the ability to block sites, both domestic and foreign with a very general guideline. That means almost any site is on the table for censoring.
Not good in my opinion.
I dont see this as solely an entitlement issue.
Music file sharing originated because the price of the copyrighted material was too high. Spending $15-20 for a CD of music you may only like a couple of tracks made Napster and the other sites so popular. They didnt feel entitled to free music, they just did not feel like getting gouged by the RIAA which receives a huge percentage of the proceeds of a CD.
iTunes replaced file sharing to a large extent because it allowed the consumer to make better choices.
- Location
- Staten Island
In all honesty people can cry all they want about people "pirating" their stuff but the truth of it is if it wasn't for the internet a large portion of those people wouldn't even have careers. The statutory rate is about 80 cents a cd for the artist. You really need to sell a TON of copies to make any money. The big money is in live performances and merchandising. Give the music for free like many artists do now and get your name out there it's a fair trade and works out in the end.
The people who are against it are stupid or greedy. It is what it is. The internet is 1 giant source of free advertising and the price of advertising would cost a hell of a lot more than they would make selling cds.
The people who are against it are stupid or greedy. It is what it is. The internet is 1 giant source of free advertising and the price of advertising would cost a hell of a lot more than they would make selling cds.
- Location
- Flushing NY 11355
Why do you think people against this bills are thinking what you think they are thinking? If so, they will be way more activists and action by now.
People who are against these bills are mostly fear of a basic right in freedom of expression being taken away by this new legislation which can shaken the foundation of the US justice system.
Yes if you are PROVEN AND INTENTIONAL.
So is the NYPD liable for "allowing" murders happening in NY? Should we shut down City Hall and took back the dollar salary of Bloomberg because he "allowed" NYPD to "allow" them to happen? The higher authorities don't have to prove they did "allow or not." With the logic of this bill, the ISP, government can preemptively strike without going through a court. So the city government can shut down the NYPD without proven, the State government can shut down the city government without proven, the Federal can shut down the State without proven and WHO is to shut the Federal even when it is PROVEN????
The problem with this bill is so vague that it allows people to pre preemptively strike ANYTHING they think is questionable. The current law allows the court to shut down a link when proven illegal. Before proven, both the link and the site is not guilty. This is a fundamental right of ALL entities in our justice system.
If you read the bills more carefully, you'll find that the real agenda is not to protect intellectual property. The disadvantages of these measures far out weight the so call advantages of these bills. It's like the power hog mongers want to legalize their powers to impose marshal laws on the internet. If the bills are passed, ISPs are inclined to shut down ANY content that may drag them into the whirl pool of litigation. These bills empower ISP and coerce them into shutting down any questionable contents in system. QUESTIONABLE contents are NOT ILLEGAL UNTIL PROVEN based on the US Justice system. This part alone shaken the theory of balance of power between branches of government that we prized. If passed, no single ISP will allow any of the member to post anything opposing the government(which sometimes could be helpful.) So you can no longer say, "Obama is ... nor Bush is .... nor Dick Dick Dick Ch... is ....or Karl Rove is ......"
Our current law and justice practice was powerful enough to shut down proven sites that violate intellectual properties such as the old Napster and transform them into an legal seller. NOTE: ANY Copywrite Holder has the power to take down a violator in the current system!!! Why do we need more control? What's the motives behind this?
US public, swayed by the main stream media, continuously complained other countries in censoring the internet, but the bills are doing exactly just that even though the face wordings make it sounds it is to control privacy.
Last edited:
- Location
- Rockland County NY
The best example I can think of is a night club:
A night club is required to keep people safe and make sure that all those inside abide by the law. When ppl start selling drugs in a club it is the clubs responsibility to stop illegal drug sales inside it's walls.
When the club's management does not stop the sale of illegal drugs, the club gets shut down.
Is it un-American to shut down the club?
A night club is required to keep people safe and make sure that all those inside abide by the law. When ppl start selling drugs in a club it is the clubs responsibility to stop illegal drug sales inside it's walls.
When the club's management does not stop the sale of illegal drugs, the club gets shut down.
Is it un-American to shut down the club?
This is nothing more than the content providers trying to write a law that will protect their business model so they can remain profitable. They could evolve with the Internet but they could lobby Congress to usher in a new set of laws that protect their interests at the expense of the rest of the country.
This is not about the originator of the content since they can already access the legal system about copyright infringement.
This is about getting everyone to keep shoveling money at the media giants.
Don't be fooled into thinking this is pro or anti American.
This is not about the originator of the content since they can already access the legal system about copyright infringement.
This is about getting everyone to keep shoveling money at the media giants.
Don't be fooled into thinking this is pro or anti American.
Last edited:
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
