Furtopia | Family Friendly Furry Forum and IRC Chat!
not-so-furry discussion => debate forum => Topic started by: Kobuk on November 16, 2011, 06:14:43 pm
-
First, a pre-emptive staff warning to keep this thread civil. This thread can and will be moved at any time to the Debate Forum at the discretion of the staff.
Secondly, Please be careful as to discussion of anything illegal as it may or may not pertain to this thread. The "encouragement/advocation" of anything illegal will be edited/removed from posts at staff's discretion.
Anyway........I come home, turn on the computer, and what do I find on the Mozilla Firefox page? This:
http://www.mozilla.org/sopa/?WT.mc_ID=sopa-snippet
. :o
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/piracy-blacklisting-bill/
Legislation that would prevent Americans from visiting websites the government claims are violating copyright rules had a tumultuous first hearing Wednesday, with its main sponsor unexpectedly expressing reservations over the bill’s scope.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), one the chief sponsors of the bill, expressed uncertainty over allowing the Justice Department to obtain court orders demanding that American ISPs prevent users from visiting blacklisted websites. ISPs receiving such orders would have to alter records in the net’s system for looking up website names, known as DNS.
The House bill also allows the Justice Department to order search sites like Google to remove an allegedly “rogue” site from its search results.
“I’m not a technical expert on this,” the chairman of the committee said, adding moments later: “I’m trying to ferret this out.” When he introduced the package last month, however, he pronounced that the bill was needed because “Rogue websites that steal and sell American innovations have operated with impunity.”
In a marathon, 3.5-hour hearing before the 38-member House Judiciary Committee, lawmakers debated among themselves and with a panel of six witnesses, five of which favored the Stop Online Piracy Act. The committee took no immediate action, but it was apparent that the 79-page measure is likely to be amended, in no small part, due to a backlash from the tech community.
Much of the package is similar to a stalled Senate measure known as the Protect IP Act.
Both proposals amount to the holy grail of intellectual-property enforcement that the recording industry, movie studios and their union and guild workforces have been clamoring for since the George W. Bush administration under the theory that online copyright infringement is destroying American jobs.
Smith, who said “everybody in this panel is committed to fighting piracy,” noted commentary from internet security experts concerned over the fallout if the Justice Department begins ordering American internet service providers to stop giving out the correct DNS entry for an infringing website under the .com, .org and .net domains.
Putting false information into the DNS system — the equivalent of the net’s phonebook — would be ineffective, frustrate security initiatives and lead to software workarounds, according to a paper co-signed by security experts Steve Crocker of Shinkuro, David Dagon of Georgia Tech, Dan Kaminsky of DKH, Danny McPherson of Verisign and Paul Vixie of Internet Systems Consortium.
“These actions would threaten the Domain Name System’s ability to provide universal naming, a primary source of the internet’s value as a single, unified, global communications network,” they wrote.
In other words, the bill would break the internet’s universal character and hamper U.S. government-supported efforts to rollout out DNS-SEC, which is intended to prevent hackers from hijacking the net through fake DNS entries.
The bill’s big-pocketed proponents weren’t moved by those arguments.
Michael O’Leary, Motion Picture Association of America vice president, told Smith that, “it’s a concern, but frankly overstated.”
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California) whose district includes Silicon Valley, expressed alarm that Google was the only company invited to testify against the bill. Google was peppered over and again by lawmakers asking why it it doesn’t simply stop rendering infringing sites in search results.
“The search engines are not capable of actually censoring the World Wide Web,” Lofgren said. “We need to go after people committing crimes.”
Katherine Oyama, Google’s policy council, responded at one point:
“We don’t control the World Wide Web,” she said, adding that Google does not know what sites are hosting infringing content unless the rights holder tells Google. When that happens, she said, Google usually stops displaying results pointing to that particular page within six hours.
The MPAA’s O’Leary countered later that, on a Google search, the in-theater-only movie J-Edgar has “a better chance that the Pirate Bay is going to end up ahead of Netflix” on a Google search.
Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, AOL, Yahoo, eBay, Mozilla, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and a host of other groups and companies oppose the measure, saying the bill will break the internet as we know it.
Not all members of the committee said the legislation needed work.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia) said, “This is a good bill.”
Rep. Mel Watt (D-North Carolina) expressed some reservations, but said legislation was needed.
“Doing nothing is not an option,” he said. “Not only are online privacy and counterfeiting drains on our economy, they expose consumers to fraud, identity theft, confusion and to harm.”
John Clark, the security chief for Pfizer, testified that counterfeit drug sales run rampant on the internet.
“I see counterfeited medicines as attempted murder,” he said.
Troubling to Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California) was how the bill described what sites could be targed, those “dedicated to infringing activity.”
The House bill allows rights holders to demand that online ad services and credit card companies stop working with an allegedly infringing sites. The copyright holder need only allege the site is “dedicated to infringing activity” — as say Viacom alleges about YouTube, and if the ad service or credit card company does not quickly sever ties, they can be held liable. No court approval is needed to send such a letter.
“It imposes harsh, arbitrary sanctions without due process,” Google’s Oyama said.
Smith’s measure also grants the U.S. attorney general sweeping powers to block the distribution of workarounds, such as the MafiaaFire plugin on the Firefox browser, that let users navigate to sites that have been blacklisted or had their domain name seized.
Smith asked witness Maria Pallante, the U.S. Registrar of Copyrights, what she meant by her testimony that if “Congress does nothing,” the “U.S. copyright system will ultimately fail.”
“I don’t think,” Pallante said, “that’s an overstatement.”
It’s not clear how the copyright system is failing given that Netflix streaming service counts more than 21 million subscribers accounting for the largest share of peak internet traffic every night, that YouTube is paying millions out to copyright holders, and an increasing number of people get their online music from paid and ad-supported services such as Pandora, Spotify, Rdio, Amazon and iTunes.
-
Could this pass?
Yes. The Stop Online Piracy Act and the PROTECT IP Act have widespread support in Congress and are expected to pass.
Widespread support? Expected to pass? Even when there is so much negativity? I've got to read more into this and then I'll make a better post.
-
Are we suddenly becoming China now?
seriously? are they freaking serious?!
guess what. im gonna post anyways. gave up on these *insert Murk's fowl mouth here* LONG TIME AGO.
-
That... This is... They're trying to control something they don't even begin to understand!
I saw something about this on Know Your Meme earlier today, and assumed it was just another short-sighted attempt to "make everything better" that'd get scrapped moments later. I really can't believe this is getting any kind of support. Going back to KYM, I found the video explaining what this is, watched it, and became quite upset. Here's a link to the video. (http://vimeo.com/31100268)
-
This is no. Just... no. On so many levels no. So much Free Speech violation this doesn't even begin to be Constitutional AT ALL.
And I'm sure Anonymous is going to stick their nose into this as well, which should be interesting how that'll play out.
-
This is actually going to pass? Is this for real? :o
The entertainment industry needs to realize the fact that their business model is outmoded. They cannot come to realize this fact, or even embrace the power of the Internet. They're blaming the consumers (and they do have grounds, considering this was made primarily to stop pirates), but they refuse to modernize.
Now that I think about it, the Internet is something that governments all over the world have to fear. It's too big, too free, and too fast. The media coverage of social media's influence in pretty much everything important nowadays only amplifies the growing concern for the people at the top (this includes both entertainment executives and government itself).
I have a feeling this is more of an experiment than anything (like Bank of America's $5 debit card fee), and that ultimately, it'll create more problems than it helps to solve. Or who knows? If it doesn't work, maybe they'll just start directly blocking IP's. If this law lasts more than a year, and if it is actually utilized, then... this is the beginning of something big.
EDIT: I just read that this is going to cost $47 million US tax dollars a year. The MPAA says they lose about $3 billion a year in box office sales (not DVD or digital downloads). So basically, this law only has to stop about 2% of piracy to be deemed "successful." What a sham.
-
My reaction summed up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKI-tD0L18A
-
I dunno what to say that wouldn't sound cliche. Hopefully organizations like Demand Progress will slow down, if not stop the bill.
-
For about a minute I was worried. Then I started thinking of how one might circumvent this feeble attempt to censor the internet. Then I remembered Anonymous and now I have no worries... at least about the technical side of this problem.
-
For about a minute I was worried. Then I started thinking of how one might circumvent this feeble attempt to censor the internet. Then I remembered Anonymous and now I have no worries... at least about the technical side of this problem.
You talk like Anonymous is some kind of superhero :D
I mean, people in China still use Facebook
-
Legislation that would prevent Americans from visiting websites the government claims are violating copyright rules had a tumultuous first hearing Wednesday, with its main sponsor unexpectedly expressing reservations over the bill’s scope.
I didn't have time to read this whole thread/article yet, but I saw this first line of the article quoted and my first thought was, "Welp... there goes Youtube."
-
Totally being pushed by special interests. The odd thing is that there should be some pretty significant special interests opposing it too. We'll see what happens. Also EFF is a great organization. Definitely something to look into.
-
I've been preparing for this ever since the Australian Communications and Media Authority started bouncing around similar proposals, so I know of a few simple ways around such schemes. I'd say more, but... Kobuk, when you say "discussion of anything illegal", do you mean things that are illegal now, or things that will become illegal if this bill passes? You need to be more specific about these things...
-
I've been preparing for this ever since the Australian Communications and Media Authority started bouncing around similar proposals, so I know of a few simple ways around such schemes. I'd say more, but... Kobuk, when you say "discussion of anything illegal", do you mean things that are illegal now, or things that will become illegal if this bill passes? You need to be more specific about these things...
When I say "anything", I mean ANYTHING illegal. ;)
-
Eh. It probably won't pass. Google, Yahoo, Facebook, eBay, and whatnot have way too much pull to have their stuff stomped by a few special interest groups like the MPAA or The Writers Guild. The record companies aren't really much of a match for a company like Google. And I've seen at least 10 of these proposed bills, and from what I can remember very few if any of them actually passed. Luckily. Hopefully nobody pulls any ninja crap with 'em one of these days and pushes it through at midnight or something.
-
I've been preparing for this ever since the Australian Communications and Media Authority started bouncing around similar proposals, so I know of a few simple ways around such schemes. I'd say more, but... Kobuk, when you say "discussion of anything illegal", do you mean things that are illegal now, or things that will become illegal if this bill passes? You need to be more specific about these things...
When I say "anything", I mean ANYTHING illegal. ;)
Have you no sense of justice? Why, when faced with the choice to be lawful or to be good, do you choose to be lawful? >:(
Although I can't say I'm at all surprised, given that Furtopia is based in America...
Eh. It probably won't pass. Google, Yahoo, Facebook, eBay, and whatnot have way too much pull to have their stuff stomped by a few special interest groups like the MPAA or The Writers Guild. The record companies aren't really much of a match for a company like Google. And I've seen at least 10 of these proposed bills, and from what I can remember very few if any of them actually passed. Luckily. Hopefully nobody pulls any ninja crap with 'em one of these days and pushes it through at midnight or something.
PROTECT IP passed, although I think there's a Senate hold on it at the moment. I see no reason not to expect SOPA to pass also. Hope is dangerous to freedom. Freedom requires action. Fortunately, there are still those of us who are willing to take action...
-
I've been preparing for this ever since the Australian Communications and Media Authority started bouncing around similar proposals, so I know of a few simple ways around such schemes. I'd say more, but... Kobuk, when you say "discussion of anything illegal", do you mean things that are illegal now, or things that will become illegal if this bill passes? You need to be more specific about these things...
When I say "anything", I mean ANYTHING illegal. ;)
Well, Foxpup... if those ways around are not illegal now then I guess this means it's free game unless/until it becomes illegal. At least, that's what I get from the literal wording of the rules. I do agree, if the discussion of something that could potentially become illegal is not allowed, the rules should reflect that view. Then again, it could have some negative consequences and limit some people's willingness to post some things on here that are controversial but not illegal. But I digress... Moving on:
After reading this, it reminds me of the stereotypical angry nerd stories. You have the jocks (the MPAA, etc) that try to push the nerds (Google, Facebook, net security firms, ect) around and always expect to get their way. Don't forget the nerds run the internet and can easily wreak havoc on the jocks. Make Google block sites that host music from their searches, and watch Google block results for every stinking band signed to your music label. Facebook to kick all those same bands off that site. Ditto Twitter. With as big as social media has become, and especially critically important search engines to find anything you need, those big money groups are playing with fire.
In a way, I think it would be interesting to watch a full scale net war like that. I wouldn't want it to actually happen because of how much it would devestate the developed world, but reading about it in a history book or something like that would be facinating. And perhaps a bit funny too.
-
Well, Foxpup... if those ways around are not illegal now then I guess this means it's free game unless/until it becomes illegal. At least, that's what I get from the literal wording of the rules. I do agree, if the discussion of something that could potentially become illegal is not allowed, the rules should reflect that view. Then again, it could have some negative consequences and limit some people's willingness to post some things on here that are controversial but not illegal.
The problem is that this bill makes it illegal for ISPs to provide access to certain sites (which is bad enough), but as far as I can tell, it doesn't just apply to ISPs: it's apparently illegal for anyone to provide access to the blocked sites. So if you're providing yourself access by your own means, then you're a criminal. Of course, if the bill doesn't pass, then the techniques for accessing blocked sites won't be illegal, but you also won't need to use them. I hate laws without loopholes...
-
For about a minute I was worried. Then I started thinking of how one might circumvent this feeble attempt to censor the internet. Then I remembered Anonymous and now I have no worries... at least about the technical side of this problem.
Heh, Anonymous was also the first thing to pop into my mind when I read this. They aren't gonna just let this slip past.
-
The entertainment industry has squealed like stuck pigs everytime
a new way to distribute media was developed and sold over the
last 50 years. But each time they end up making billions more..
This will likely end up costing taxpayers more and nothing else. It's
very difficult to stop software workarounds..
Even with tens of thousands of net watchers many users in China still find
ways to use the net as they wish.
I hope there are enough commercial interests to prevent such nonsense here.
-
Check out the Wikipedia article: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2011)"
-
This isn't something new and out-of-the-blue; from what my aged relatives (I'm not exactly a spring chicken myself :D) tell me, the 'Entertainment Industry' has been grousing about 'lost revenue' since the first retail-available recording devices came to be used to record AM radio, and haven't stopped since. I really don't see how all this new regulation is supposed to stop hackers and identity thieves; it sounds to me as if they're targeting the wrong end of the system.
The thing is, though, the bill will probably pass, and we'll just have to adjust our lives accordingly. It just might/probably turn out to be about as effective and have as little actual impact as previous attempts to regulate artistic freedom. Just have to wait and see.
-
Does anyone know when we'll find out?
-
Foxpup: I just got home from work, so I haven't had much time to prepare what I want to say. What I can temporarily say is this: Furtopia is a PG/Family Friendly community. We have members here of all ages, especially children as young as 12 or 13. So the discussion of illegal topics, items, etc. needs to be kept to a minimum or not at all........or taken to the adult forums. The "encouragement/advocation" of anything illegal which could harm a person's health/safety or get them into trouble is strictly prohibited on the forums as we do not need members (Especially any children) hearing/reading about such things and later trying to do them IRL. So trying to discuss/encourage/advocate for example an illegal way of downloading a song is banned.
Now you or someone else may say: "But even if you prohibit "encouragement/advocation" of illegal stuff, or keep discussion of illegal topics "in check" so to speak, Adults and children are still going to hear about and do illegal stuff from their friends, school, etc., etc., etc."
What people do off of Furtopia is their own business. But here on the forums, the rules are to be followed. We don't need parents coming on here asking why their son Billy learned about illegally downloading a movie on a respectable family friendly furry forum, know what I mean? ;)
I won't discuss anymore about the rules here so as to not derail the thread. If members have further questions, then they can PM the staff.
-
Did someone say Anonymous? ;)
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Anonymous-Threatens-Congress-Over-SOPA-235201.shtml
-
The Internet is too threatening.
-
…I've yet to find a server, firewall, or filter, government based or otherwise that was successful in denying me access to anything,
And I doubt that this will be any different, inconvenient maybe, but not a show stopper in any way.
-
Might as well shut down retail stores, because they are just like websites: linking to copyrighted stuff by advertising.
This never scared me so much...
-
Might as well shut down retail stores, because they are just like websites: linking to copyrighted stuff by advertising.
This never scared me so much...
What in the world are you talking about?
Advertisements are contracted agreements between two or more parties.
And stores can freely sell the goods they own, that’s what a retail or business license is for,
As it gives a business permission to sell goods and or services in a given area.
Whether it's a store or a website, what’s going on with the internet has nothing to do with any of that,
I think maybe you misunderstood something in the article.
-
I might have misunderstood something, but many many small shops like thrift stores sell copyrighted stuff. It's like a link to the copyright holder. "omg a my little pony! It's from Hasbro right? I must pot this on Facebook!"
Anyways, if it goes through, that jail spot that's being occupied by a criminal link-poster could've been used for a muderer, or pedophile, or theif, or a REAL criminal who harms the public.
-
As rediculous as I think this law is, the Interent is amplifying the situation too quickly. Shutting down a major site like YouTube would be a PR nightmare for anyone that does it.
And to anyone who knows, how long can a Senate hold last?
-
And to anyone who knows, how long can a Senate hold last?
A "hold" is placed when the leader's office is notified that a senator intends to object to a request for unanimous consent from the Senate to consider or pass a measure. A hold may be placed for any reason and can be lifted by a senator at any time. A senator may place a hold simply to review a bill, to negotiate changes to the bill, or to kill the bill. A bill can be held for as long as the senator who objects to the bill wishes to block its consideration.
Basically, there is no limit… though there are ways to overcome a hold, but I don't know much about that, or how it works.
-
I talked to Weisseman about it, and he assures me that since this law is not in effect yet, and may well never be in effect (if the SOPA bill doesn't pass), I am in fact allowed to talk about ways around it, despite what Kobuk says.
****Post edited/removed by WhiteShepherd****
WhiteShepherd-> First Foxpup I am not so much against WHAT you are saying as how you said it which is disrespectful towards Kobuk. Mods may disagree in opinion on if something is right/wrong but we do stand up for each other and demand respect maintained for all MODs period.
In the future the best way to handle a dispute (in case you did not know) is if a mod makes a decision you feel is incorrect ask "another" mod for a vote on the decision (this is a member right). A vote will be taken among the mods and that decision is "final" on any outcome.
To you Foxpup as far as your post I have always been against censorship and have a history. I received many threats (legal and physical) because Furtopia hosted art that individuals did not like and therefor was not art (opinion).
As a programer I can say your "fix" previously posted will not work because the new renditions of the bill require ISPs to "reroute" actual banned IPs of domains. But it is little worry. If this atrocity passes proxy technology will only jump forward like it has in the past. Furthermore some big money names (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft) is lobbying strongly against the bill and big money is the only vote that counts in Washington. So rather than put the cart before the horse lets keep the thread on topic and discuss what you agree/disagree with this specific bill. IF the bill makes it into law then a new "on topic" discussion can be made on what possible things can be done?
WhiteShepherd
-
Check out the Wikipedia article: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2011)"
as much as the anti- Online Piracy Act
The short answer is yes can support this act. I had read the bill and do not see any reference to censorship unless one it trafficking ie infringing the copyright of the rightful user.
I always have a strong uncompromising capitalist very of intellectual property rights and a very strong sense of individual and Christian morality.. The rights belong excursively to the owner; the owner has the final authority of distribution and used. NO EXCEPTIONS. The owners can ether charge for the use or give away. To violate the ownership of the media is theft, simply THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. !
Yes it might make had on some because take out your YouTube video because of copyright issues my answer do use copyright material or get permission the first place. or find free or royalty free options.
This issue is came home when a few of my pictures were used without my authorization, it way I invoke a creative common 3.0 license.
-
If Congress and all these artists and big name corporations really wanted to stop piracy and such, then they'd stop sending all American goods, jobs, etc. overseas to China and other third world countries where everything is now manufactured. >:( That's part of the problem right there. ;)
All it takes is for someone to copy/steal the blueprints to something or swipe something right off the assembly line, etc. and then sell it on the black market and distribute it to other unscrupulous parties.
So if there's anybody to blame for this mess, It's ourselves for selling out our own country. :P
-
If Congress and all these artists and big name corporations really wanted to stop piracy and such, then they'd stop sending all American goods, jobs, etc. overseas to China and other third world countries where everything is now manufactured. >:( That's part of the problem right there. ;)
All it takes is for someone to copy/steal the blueprints to something or swipe something right off the assembly line, etc. and then sell it on the black market and distribute it to other unscrupulous parties.
So if there's anybody to blame for this mess, It's ourselves for selling out our own country. :P
On Jobs:
Congress doesn't technically send american jobs anywhere... But whether you believe in capitalism or not, it does exist on a global level, and international corporations will go where currency is stable, and where taxes are low. So in a way, they are making our country a bad place for corporations to invest with high taxes and ever inflating currency. I think it's unrealistic to think that they'd invest somewhere that's not financially a wise place to invest. It would only prevent them from effectively competing in their markets when they have to raise prices to cover costs. So, in reality, i'd agree, they are.
Stop wasteful spending, cut taxes, stop inflating currency = a better place for corporations to invest = private sector jobs
Check out the Wikipedia article: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2011)"
as much as the anti- Online Piracy Act
The short answer is yes can support this act. I had read the bill and do not see any reference to censorship unless one it trafficking ie infringing the copyright of the rightful user.
I always have a strong uncompromising capitalist very of intellectual property rights and a very strong sense of individual and Christian morality.. The rights belong excursively to the owner; the owner has the final authority of distribution and used. NO EXCEPTIONS. The owners can ether charge for the use or give away. To violate the ownership of the media is theft, simply THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. !
Yes it might make had on some because take out your YouTube video because of copyright issues my answer do use copyright material or get permission the first place. or find free or royalty free options.
This issue is came home when a few of my pictures were used without my authorization, it way I invoke a creative common 3.0 license.
Copyright laws already exist. They could just enforce existing laws. Instead, they're trying to regulate and control something they don't understand in the name of specific special interests who are notoriously bad at adapting to new technologies.
-
Why was this moved to the adult section? This doesn't seem in any way like a strictly adult topic.
Anyways...
I honestly don't see how something like this could possibly stand.
For years these companies have tried to get rid of piracy, but the fact is all they really accomplish is make things harder for legitimate users. Instead of fighting it so hard, which is extremely ineffective, they should grow with the technology. I think people in general want to support those that make the content they like. And the internet makes business models based on that more effective than ever. iTunes and Steam are great examples of that. If you make it easy and inexpensive for people to legally purchase content they like, they will.
How do they get the figures for how much they supposedly lose though piracy? I find those figured questionable at best. For one thing, I don't see where they could possibly collect accurate data on that, and for another, people that are getting the content through piracy are not necessarily going to buy the content from them if the other means are removed.
-
Why was this moved to the adult section? This doesn't seem in any way like a strictly adult topic.
Anyways...
Because of the content posted by Foxpup in post # 32, I have discussed this thread with another staff person and we have agreed to move it here as the content posted by Foxpup should not be viewable by younger members in the open forums. Any further questions or concerns can be sent via PM.
-
as much as the anti- Online Piracy Act
The short answer is yes can support this act. I had read the bill and do not see any reference to censorship unless one it trafficking ie infringing the copyright of the rightful user.
I always have a strong uncompromising capitalist very of intellectual property rights and a very strong sense of individual and Christian morality.. The rights belong excursively to the owner; the owner has the final authority of distribution and used. NO EXCEPTIONS. The owners can ether charge for the use or give away. To violate the ownership of the media is theft, simply THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. !
No, no, no, no, no, no. The owner does not have the final authority of distribution and use. One fairly huge exception (at least as it applies to this discussion) is fair use. Fair use, as we all know, is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement, meaning you can't claim it until after you've been indicted, at which point the judge dismisses your case if he/she agrees with you. Even if we accept the questionable premise that copyright violation = theft, people accused of theft get taken to court where they have a chance to prove their innocence or explain their actions. But that doesn't happen with this bill. With this bill, copyright owners can just shut down site before the courts ever enter the picture. If the courts later decide that you weren't violating copyright and what you were doing was fair use all along, well that's just too bad. Your site got shut down anyway.
Yes it might make had on some because take out your YouTube video because of copyright issues my answer do use copyright material or get permission the first place. or find free or royalty free options.
This issue is came home when a few of my pictures were used without my authorization, it way I invoke a creative common 3.0 license.
You're talking about the company that took down a video of a dancing baby because there was copyright music playing in the background. Fair use and totally legal, but apparently nobody cares about such trifling details.
-
In regards to Foxpup’s post (Reply #32) (http://forums.furtopia.org/index.php?topic=42747.msg817915#msg817915) I don’t think that is going to work anymore.
Read → http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57328045-281/sopas-latest-threat-ip-blocking-privacy-busting-packet-inspection/
With the actual IP blocked, that self DNS method won’t work, of course there’s always foreign proxies, (as well as other methods, which can't be named here).
But basically it looks as if this is getting worse, though maybe we’ll all get lucky with the bill getting so ridiculous,
That the proponents of the bill wind up killing it themselves by making it more and more absurd.
-
In regards to Foxpup’s post (Reply #32) (http://forums.furtopia.org/index.php?topic=42747.msg817915#msg817915) I don’t think that is going to work anymore.
Read → http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57328045-281/sopas-latest-threat-ip-blocking-privacy-busting-packet-inspection/
With the actual IP blocked, that self DNS method won’t work, of course there’s always foreign proxies, (as well as other methods, which can't be named here).
But basically it looks as if this is getting worse, though maybe we’ll all get lucky with the bill getting so ridiculous,
That the proponents of the bill wind up killing it themselves by making it more and more absurd.
There's also Tor, Freenet, I2P, and of course having a dial-up account with a foreign ISP gives you uncensored (if ridiculously slow and expensive) Internet from anywhere with a phone line. Then there are the other methods...
-
Why do they even bother?
I just know anon will have a field day with this, and they'll (MAFIAA & Co) get what's coming to them for their folly.
In other news, the sales of popcorn over the internet are expected to rise...
-
If you want to keep up with the hearing today, check out this live video: http://www.keepthewebopen.com/sopa
-
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/30/will-google-amazon-and-facebook-blackout-net/
Awesome.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/30/will-google-amazon-and-facebook-blackout-net/
Awesome.
Vote against SOPA or no more Google!
Come on...this is as insane as nuclear war. If any politician had the nerve to shut down a site with the equivalent user base of Google, Facebook, or Amazon, they'd be out of office. I don't understand how inconveniencing their users would solve anything.
-
When sites as big and popular as those start shutting down, it'll show congress two things. 1) Just how much power they have on the net (especially Google), and 2) People will get very upset at the lack of net functionality and start blowing up the U.S. capitol switchboard to protest the bill until congress abandons it to get the net back.
-
When sites as big and popular as those start shutting down, it'll show congress two things. 1) Just how much power they have on the net (especially Google), and 2) People will get very upset at the lack of net functionality and start blowing up the U.S. capitol switchboard to protest the bill until congress abandons it to get the net back.
So first it was money. Now, it's user base.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/30/will-google-amazon-and-facebook-blackout-net/
Awesome.
Vote against SOPA or no more Google!
Come on...this is as insane as nuclear war. If any politician had the nerve to shut down a site with the equivalent user base of Google, Facebook, or Amazon, they'd be out of office. I don't understand how inconveniencing their users would solve anything.
Well, its not merely about them (though they could be on the receiving end of fallout of sites being blacklisted, as well as the likelihood of restrictions being placed on search engines (Though I suspect google will openly defy them, being google)), and its not the politicians themselves who are shutting down sites either. Although I hope the blackout will not be necessary, I will support it if it comes to it. The blackout is easily reversed should SOPA not go through; repealing SOPA if it passes would be a vastly longer processes, and not guaranteed. As "nuclear options" go, this is a rather convenient one for Google & Co, saddling the politicians with the real burden.
The MAFIAA also needs to be disbanded, permanently. They've been the largest source of these stupid bills, and their disconnection from reality is really inconveniencing everyone. Or at least they could do us the favor of over-spending on campaign funding and lawyers, resulting in them shriveling up and dying due to bankruptcy. Oh, how I'd love for something they push for to blow up in a nuclear failsplosion in their face, shaming them for the whole world to see, permanently destroying any credibility they somehow manage to maintain.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/30/will-google-amazon-and-facebook-blackout-net/
Awesome.
Vote against SOPA or no more Google!
Come on...this is as insane as nuclear war. If any politician had the nerve to shut down a site with the equivalent user base of Google, Facebook, or Amazon, they'd be out of office. I don't understand how inconveniencing their users would solve anything.
IIts worst; I getting tired of misinformation and panic of the anti-SOPA folks. The of the largest myths are that it will break the internet and it censorship. The internet will be fine I fell it will not affect the DNS or physical of the net. The only sites that will be affected are those who are violation of copy right laws. Google and Ebay would come around and change their TOS before being forced to close. Second it is not censorship since it is the copyright owner not the Government to initialize the complaint. People will still be free to produce political speech but there not right to unauthorized use without permission, furthermore some like Time Warner and Viacom will be strict others like Hub(?) (Think My Little Pony ) and Funimation will be more relaxed. It will be the holder not government who decides to pursue legal action against foreign websites.
-
Bringing up MLP, that's a large chunk of FA down for a start if they decide to get tough later on.
Congress has the duty to protect copyright holders, yes. There is also the need to promote and protect freedom. It is true that there is a lot of piracy, but there is also a great deal of harmless fan work that probably helps the things they are fans of and yet are also likely to be shut down and suppressed because the companies involved will rightly decide that it's in their interests to shut down everything. They don't have the time to be careful and its better to go too far than not far enough in these cases. The biggest issue isn't even that, though. From what I understand, SOPA will have a lot of collateral damage. It won't break the internet, but it will diminish it a great deal as the content providers are forced to take the same attitude as the companies. They profit more by an automated destruction with collateral damage to the innocent than to be careful. The reason Google exists is because careful indexing is impossible. If the spiders have to be instructed in SOPA, they'll be told to block everything that even looks like infringement.
I don't think Google will do that. The others can be cowed but if it comes to it, I expect Google will run a much better funded lobby right back to have the thing dropped. They have the populist and material strength to do it. The issue isn't the right of the individual vs. that of the corporation. It's a matter of moderation. Then again, a Congress willing to abolish due process isn't very moderate.
-
IIts worst; I getting tired of misinformation and panic of the anti-SOPA folks. The of the largest myths are that it will break the internet and it censorship. The internet will be fine I fell it will not affect the DNS or physical of the net. The only sites that will be affected are those who are violation of copy right laws. Google and Ebay would come around and change their TOS before being forced to close. Second it is not censorship since it is the copyright owner not the Government to initialize the complaint. People will still be free to produce political speech but there not right to unauthorized use without permission, furthermore some like Time Warner and Viacom will be strict others like Hub(?) (Think My Little Pony ) and Funimation will be more relaxed. It will be the holder not government who decides to pursue legal action against foreign websites.
Below is a quote from Wikipedia:
According to critics of the bill such as the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the bill's wording is vague enough that a single complaint about even a major website could be enough to cause the site to be blocked, with the burden of proof then resting on the website to get itself un-blocked. The focus of much of the criticism is on a statement in the bill, that any website would be blocked that "is taking, or has taken deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation." Critics have read this to mean that a website that does not actively monitor its content for copyright violations, but instead waits for others to notify it of such violations, could be guilty under the law.[37][27]
Law professor Jason Mazzone wrote, "Damages are also not available to the site owner unless a claimant 'knowingly materially' misrepresented that the law covers the targeted site, a difficult legal test to meet. The owner of the site can issue a counter-notice to restore payment processing and advertising but services need not comply with the counter-notice".[38]
What you've said appears to make a number of assumptions, namely
- that SOPA accurately categorizes websites that primarily exist to violate copyright laws,
- that copyright holders will only use the provisions of SOPA against websites that are predominantly piracy based rather than predominantly based on legitimate services, and
- that copyright holders will not use the provisions of SOPA as a pretense to shut down a website for reasons other than copyright infringement (for example, to take down a parody covered under fair use).
The Wikipedia snipped I quoted indicates that the first assumption is being questioned, which makes the validity of the other assumptions relevant. (A theoretical bill that had SOPA's power, but without a question could *only* be used to target piracy based websites, would not have nearly as strong as a censorship argument against it; whether the bill could be used to censor legitimate services would almost be a moot point to argue in that case.) If the second assumption fails to hold, then the burden placed on legitimate websites to prevent piracy and copyright infringement is enormously increased. Under the current laws, a site like Youtube can be take down content that copyright owners declare to be infringing, whereas under the provisions of SOPA, a site like Youtube would have to prescreen all content for anything that a copyright holder might find infringing to avoid the penalizing provisions of SOPA.
The issue of censorship comes from the fear that the third premise I listed above might not hold. The fear is that the provisions of SOPA might be used, for example, to remove an entire blog website because it contains a blog with negative product reviews and corresponding pictures of said products (copyrighted material whose use is protected under fair use). Keep in mind that services even as basic as image hosting, email, forums, and even IRC could potentially be subject to SOPA's provisions as well, as all of these services allow the distribution of content which could arguably be copyrighted. The concern isn't so much that the government would be implementing censorship; rather, the concern is that copyright holders would become censoring by using the provisions of the the new law interpreted and utilized liberally to eliminate access to material that they do not want others to access.
In summary, a large reservation against SOPA is that its scope is very poorly defined to the point of being destructive. This is in addition to (among others) the previously stated reservation that SOPA's anti-piracy provisions are relatively easily circumvented by various existing technologies; it won't succeed at doing what it's (supposedly) intended to do in the first place.
-
Edit: Any frustration expressed below through the choice of wording and/or font parameters is directed to the MAFIAA and the american political system. Just wanted to clarify that my intention is not to direct my frustration at members here, in case anyone misread anything.
The following is a relatively lengthy reply to Acton's post which goes "in-depth" (relative to the discussion here) into the workings of SOPA. If you would like a TL; WR (too long; won't read) summery of my 'analysis of sopa', here it is:
TL; WR:
SOPA is a complete joke. A very bad one at that. One that, if it were comedy, would probably result in rotten tomatoes and sharp eating utensils being thrown at the comedian delivering the joke in question.
It WON'T stop piracy.
It WILL cause collateral damage.
It CAN be EASILY abused.
It IS stupid.
IIts worst; I getting tired of misinformation and panic of the anti-SOPA folks. The of the largest myths are that it will break the internet and it censorship. The internet will be fine I fell it will not affect the DNS or physical of the net. The only sites that will be affected are those who are violation of copy right laws. Google and Ebay would come around and change their TOS before being forced to close. Second it is not censorship since it is the copyright owner not the Government to initialize the complaint. People will still be free to produce political speech but there not right to unauthorized use without permission, furthermore some like Time Warner and Viacom will be strict others like Hub(?) (Think My Little Pony ) and Funimation will be more relaxed. It will be the holder not government who decides to pursue legal action against foreign websites.
Ok, I'm not really sure where to start with this, so I'll dissect it line by line. I'm not a lawyer or professor of law, but I've done web development and management professionally (in the music industry to boot, and have directly dealt with copyright violation on the internet with regards to my client's work), and have dealt with copyright law quite a bit in the past as one of the admin of the Transcendence (For clarification, that is http://transcendence-game.com ) community, as well as in a summer job.
"The of the largest myths are that it will break the internet and it censorship."
Personally, I've never heard anyone say it would break the internet, and its not going to "Break the internet" in the sense of causing the internet to cease functioning as intended on its most base level (blacklisting is done DNS-side on the level of domains). And while yes, I agree that the sentiment of "SOPA == Internet apocalypse!!!!111!!11!one!1one!!1" is silly, I do so for a very different reason: SOPA won't work. - see last paragraph for explanation. That still however does not fix the facts that its:
1) Stupid. (It will fail to achieve its intended goal; any pirate worth his virtual salt and his dog (and social networking friends, and email contact list, and the cats of all those people) would know all the easy bypasses of SOPA by... about... oh, say, a couple months ago.)
2) Has the potential for serious fallout. (It can create wide-reaching effects which inconvenience legitimate users, while ironically doing little to hinder piracy)
3) Its method of operation is in fact a form of censorship.
"The internet will be fine I fell it will not affect the DNS or physical of the net."
Ok, I'm not entirely sure what this sentence is trying to say. I believe a more accurate translation would be "The internet will be fine; SOPA does not affect DNSs or the physical infrastructure".
Although it is correct that SOPA does not affect the physical infrastructure, it is also like saying "SOPA will not affect your car". Its irrelevant: SOPA does not have any direct dealings with internet infrastructure, the postal service, personal transportation, or the price of tea in china.
On the other hand, saying that SOPA does not affect the DNSs is completely false; SOPAs main method of operation is by DNS-side blacklists. What it does is - with a simplified explanation - basically require the DNSs to prevent a connection to a blacklisted domain from being established.
"The only sites that will be affected are those who are violation of copy right laws."
You do not understand how SOPA intends to function. SOPA "works" (I say "works" because from a technical standpoint, it doesn't actually do anything than provide a *very* slight inconvenience to copyright violators, and a hassle to everyone else - more on this later) very much like youtube copyright complaint filing (which I think works in a horribly stupid way). On youtube, someone can file a copyright complaint against a video, and (presumably by showing some basis for it) it will then get removed. However, this has led to a number of incidents (most infamously regarding the original Nyan Cat video) where someone who was not the copyright holder filed complaint against a video that the actual copyright holder had no qualms about, resulting in a removal (the copyright holder in question eventually did manage to get the video reinstated, but not until after they had already taken undue blame for the removal of the video). In fact, many sites hosting user-uploaded content use a similar method. To be quite frank, I was alarmed at how easy it would be to fraudulently require removal of material, as I have had to request content removal from multiple sites on multiple occasions, and found many of them did not even bother to validate my identity (I had left contact information, and only one ever responded asking for credentials). This is a "guilty until proven innocent" process, although not explicitly required, is generally "promoted" by the way the DMCA and associated Safe Harbor legislation works. However, this is something that pertains specifically to individual items of content uploaded by website users. SOPA functions at the level of entire domains: not at the level of individual units of content; not at the level of individual users; not at the level of subdomains. Meaning, it is entirely plausible for someone (even if they were a 'valid' copyright holder), to request a domain blacklist, and it would be blacklisted until shown that the primary intent of the content was not copyright violation (or presumably, remove the content, if user-uploaded). Fraudulent blacklisting would be relatively easy to perform; I would frankly not be surprised if some larger sites secretively blacklist themselves over highly dubious infractions (such as a search engine providing a link to a copyright-infringing website, which technically does fall under SOPA, the last time I checked) to make a point, even though I don't actually expect things to come to that. Even when the complaint is filed by a legitimate copyright holder, the system can still be easily abused, or even misfire in the case of 'mistaken identity' (such as when content being used under fair-use terms is misconstrued as a violation of copyright, or when something that is legitimately allowed may be taken action against because somebody didn't get the memo about it).
"Google and Ebay would come around and change their TOS before being forced to close."
This doesn't make sense in the context of a SOPA discussion. They cannot change TOS agreements to get around SOPA, based on the way it functions, as explained previously. I'm honestly not even sure what you were trying to get at here. With regards to Google, they also have their own domain name servers, and thus would (theoretically - this is google afterall; they have gotten away with "Corporate civil disobedience" before) have to comply.
"Second it is not censorship since it is the copyright owner not the Government to initialize the complaint."
Clearly, you do not understand what censorship is. [Edit: To clarify, this is meant in a matter-of-fact way, not in a condescending sort of way]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring (Censorship was defined as the "practice of censoring", so I didn't bother linking it)
"People will still be free to produce political speech but there not right to unauthorized use without permission, furthermore some like Time Warner and Viacom will be strict others like Hub(?) (Think My Little Pony ) and Funimation will be more relaxed."
Again, this statement implies that you do not understand what censorship is. Furthermore, some companies have it as policy to over-react to any potential copyright violation (often in the name of "protecting the brand", which to some extent is 'legitimate' under the current legal system (For an example of what happens if one does not protect their brand, see Kleenex). That doesn't make it right by any extent, but merely 'less wrong', in my eyes).
"It will be the holder not government who decides to pursue legal action against foreign websites. "
Its not merely foreign websites, but domestic ones as well. Furthermore, SOPA affects only domestic DNSs. This brings me to the point of why it would only mildly inconvenience pirates, and would be a much greater irritation to legitimate users.
When a domain has been blacklisted, for whatever reason, under SOPA, the domain name servers will simply not provide the IP needed to connect between the client and the server. Which means that there are two relatively simple ways to ignore it: 1. using a foreign DNS, which will not be required to blacklist domains under SOPA (As they are outside US's/SOPA's jurisdiction), 2. using an IP to directly connect to the server, which will bypass the need for a DNS. Also, on the side of the website managers, they could rely on multiple domains, so if one were to be blacklisted, others would continue to function. If anyone attempted to block these methods, because they are umbrellas covering even more legitimate uses than the umbrella of domains, which themselves cover large enough swaths of legitimate uses for blacklisting to be seriously controversial, would essentially be political suicide (Death by internet backdraft: as wisely quoted (And foolishly ignored) by the company Ocean Marketing ( https://www.google.com/search?q=ocean+marketing - see oceanmarketinginc.com for the quotation on their main page), "Your brand is no stronger than your reputation- and will increasingly depend on what comes up when you are googled." -Allan Jenkins).
For the majority of software pirates (both the civil disobedience kind who do it in protest against the MAFIAA, and those who simply wouldn't have bought it anyways), this is just another hurdle easily surmounted with a quick search (theoretically needed only once, to get the IP of a foreign DNS). In fact, the real pirates probably have their contingency plans all worked out by now, and couldn't care less what happens (the ones who pirate it anyways).
For the majority of average users (who probably don't have an inkling of what a DNS is), finding the solutions to circumventing the issues that can arise (be it due to shady copyright complaint filing, to over-extensive or over-zealous complaints taking out entire user-driven sites over the infractions of single users, to legitimately needing the same services as the pirates for non-copyright infringing reasons (legal in the united states anyways, which is what SOPA concerns)) is going to a be very big challenge for them. Even if most pirates may not actually be all that "technologically literate" (or, well, quite frankly, literate at all (these are mainly the "wouldn't buy anyhow" group, which would appear to have an average age of 10 years)), a simple how-to guide (with pictures considerately included for the illiterate 8-year-olds!) on the innumerable places that cater to them will point them in the right direction, telling them exactly what to do. Meanwhile, the average user is unlikely to come across these, and blindly wander around until they can eventually get help from someone.
TL; DR:
If you are reading this, you have either read through the whole post and are reading this simply to see what I wrote, or you somehow managed to skim over the whole thing and miss the summary at the top in the bold-red-text TL; WR. >.>
-
If you guys intend to write lengthy posts, then out of common courtesy, Please put them, or at least the majority of your text, behind a spoiler tag. Thanks. :)
http://forums.furtopia.org/index.php?topic=39242.0
-
If you guys intend to write lengthy posts, then out of common courtesy, Please put them, or at least the majority of your text, behind a spoiler tag. Thanks. :)
http://forums.furtopia.org/index.php?topic=39242.0
Huge blocks of text in a spoiler tag? Is that a joke? How are you supposed to scroll down to read it all without accidentally moving the mouse away and losing it all? Not everyone has mouse with a scroll wheel, you know. Hell, not everyone even has a mouse! Out of common courtesy, I'd like to ask people to please use spoiler tags only for actual spoilers, and not huge blocks of text. Thank you. >:(
-
If you guys intend to write lengthy posts, then out of common courtesy, Please put them, or at least the majority of your text, behind a spoiler tag. Thanks. :)
http://forums.furtopia.org/index.php?topic=39242.0
Huge blocks of text in a spoiler tag? Is that a joke? How are you supposed to scroll down to read it all without accidentally moving the mouse away and losing it all? Not everyone has mouse with a scroll wheel, you know. Hell, not everyone even has a mouse! Out of common courtesy, I'd like to ask people to please use spoiler tags only for actual spoilers, and not huge blocks of text. Thank you. >:(
Watch your tone, Foxpup. >:( I was simply asking out of "common courtesy". If a person can't or doesn't want to, then that is up to them.
-
I think he mistook it as being a bit more official than you intended it to be. I sure did. but yeah, spoiler tags that use hovering are not touchpad friendly, so it would probably be prudent to not use them until a buttonbased one can be implemented I suppose
-
Redyoshi and Avan both hit the nail on the head, though i think i should re-emphasize that the current model for a LOT Of websites no-longer work.
Websites like eBay, Amazon, YouTube, and Facebook are all based on user submitted content which is far to vast to be individually screened.
Websites like Google and Yahoo use crawlers to bring in data and display it in a prioritized way on request in order to help people find content. There is no way for them to individually scan every piece of information they collect and check to see if it's copyrighted.
-
Which means that the crawlers will be given SOPA based instructions to flag and blacklist automatically. People will have to appeal and it will slow down the process of content creation from seconds-hours to days-years.
-
That has no real feasability. Its one of those things in the world of programming that is so very much easier said then done. (Plus the SEO crawlers would not blacklist, but rather ignore)
Crawler based detection would be an even larger disaster than SOPA itself, because they are so prone to false-positives, and even more-so to false negatives. You'd get a better return for your money by burning it.
-
That's what I meant. The crawlers would have to ignore most of the internet because caution is better than being sued and so their sensitivity would be enormously high.
-
On the same topic, I found an interesting video talking about why all these companies (Disney etc) are pushing so hard for SOPA, and how they're actually liable for the pirating from downloading during the 90's that they've been crying about and suing people over and that they are using to push this law:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc
-
And what about the people who have and use DVR's, etc.? For instance, a person has to go to work and will miss watching his favorite tv show. So he sets his DVR device to record it while he's gone. How would SOPA affect that, if any?
-
SOPA wouldn't apply to someone simply recording a show I don't think. It sounds like it's mostly addressing websites distributing copyrighted media. Besides, if DVR'S were an issue, it would fall under other regulations. It's no different than recording on a VCR or even a cassette from the radio.
-
SOPA stands for Stop Online Piracy Act, so I doubt it'll affect DVRs.
-
It will not affect DVR systems.
-
What missing here is ant reference to the act. Can any opponent me to the sections of the law which you feel detrimental. So far I see appeal to authority while the authority engages in the same non sequitur fallacies. Or worst a few Straw Man argument s thrown in for good measue.
The solution is simple if it’s not yours, ask before using or do use copyright media. Do Not download illegal pirated material. How in the Lords name we got to a belief we are entitled to what other produced. If they say no you can be a adult and live with it.
I may have more but I tired of dealing with the younger generation.
-
Acton, please understand i mean no disrespect, but the debate regarding SOPA is not, "online piracy," vs. "The Law." I would guess that most of the people here if not all are also against the theft of intellectual property; What we are against is the mechanism that this bill uses in an attempt to solve that problem. SOPA would not solve the theft problem. It would drive it farther underground, but it wouldn't stop, or even put a dent in it. It will however cause serious problems elsewhere, and mass inconvenience for the law abiding user, small businesses, and even net giants like Google.
What Avan and Redyoshi were doing was explaining why the bill does not take the current model for the majority of major websites into consideration, and how it allows entire websites to be removed from the web without even a court hearing. They also explained in great detail the mechanics of why they believe the bill not work and explained their experience in that field (having a lot of experience on a topic does not make your opinion invalid)...
There has been a lot of explanation on the specifics but you never actually argued on or acknowledged those points.
-
(*see edit at bottom of post*)
What missing here is ant reference to the act. Can any opponent me to the sections of the law which you feel detrimental.
The Wikipedia snippet I quoted in my previous post contained a quote of one of the controversial segments of SOPA. This text does actually appear in the bill (see this link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112drCNFb:e29093:), section 103.a.1.B.ii.I).
So far I see appeal to authority while the authority engages in the same non sequitur fallacies.
It's worth noting that appealing to authority itself is not necessarily a logical fallacy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)). It is a fallacy if the authority is illegitimate, and it is a fallacy if an authority's belief is used as absolute proof rather than an assertion to probable truth.
For example, it's not fallacious to believe Michael Jordan when he says that basketball tactic A is one of the most effective techniques available when used as part of a team's strategy; he is, after all, an authority when it comes to basketball, and is usually makes accurate statements on related topics. It would be fallacious to believe the same statement from Warren Buffet's lips; he is an authority on investment, not basketball (to my awareness), and he would probably be no better at making an accurate statement about basketball than an average citizen would be. Additionally, it would also be fallacious to believe Michal Jordan's statement beyond a shadow of a doubt; he may be frequently correct about statements involving basketball, but it's incorrect to believe to that he will *always* be correct when he makes statements about basketball. It is, after all, possible that basketball tactic A is easily defeated by some other tactic B unknown to Michael Jordan, which in turn would make tactic A obsolete.
The authority I appealed to in my Wikipedia quote was EFF. EFF is an organization that focuses largely on the preservation of personal liberties as they apply to current and emerging computer related technologies. They are authority figures when it comes to computer technology as a consequence of their focus. Due to the work they do in United States law (including that of legal defense), they are also authority figures when it comes to the law as it pertains to computer technology. Asserting that EFF is possibly or even probably correct in their assertions regarding SOPA is not fallacious if their status as an authority is held as accurate.
Furthermore, EFF details in articles on their website that there are companies who *currently* use copyright enforcement laws outside of their intended scope (for example, to claim copyright on reviews, and sue for copyright violations against those who post negative reviews (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/patient-sues-dentist-over-gag-order-causing-medical-justice-to-drop-it.ars) (the linked article was linked from a different EFF article (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/blacklist-bills-ripe-abuse) as a source)). It does follow that, all other things being equal, these companies would probably use a new copyright enforcement law outside of its intended scope if it was possible to do so. Therefore, it's important to make sure that proposed copyright enforcement laws are specific in their scope so this type of abuse is less likely.
Or worst a few Straw Man argument s thrown in for good measue.
What arguments are straw man arguments?
The solution is simple if it’s not yours, ask before using or do use copyright media. Do Not download illegal pirated material.
The argument I gave in my previous post applies irrespective of one's beliefs on the ethics of piracy. Assuming that the possibility of censorship was the only problem with the bill, questioning the appropriateness of the bill reduces to a values decision between free speech and copyright protection. Having said that, even for those who are substantially in favor of protecting copyrights, there is another reason to be opposed to this bill. As I and others have alluded to before, the bill does almost nothing to stop piracy, in spite of its title. Let me explain through a metaphor.
Let's say that Congress was looking to write a bill to stop illegal drug trafficking. They construct a bill that says that removes the entry for suspected drug dealers from US phone books.
What would US drug dealers and drug users do in response to this bill? They'd stop using phone books to contact each other. Drug dealers would contact their heaviest users in person or over the phone to give their users their own phone numbers. Drug users would talk to each other over the phone or in person and tell each other the phone numbers for drug dealers that they personally knew. After that, the drug users would call the drug dealers directly without consulting a phone book. The change would be mildly inconvenient, but completely feasible. The bill would not stop illegal drug trafficking.
DNS servers serve the same purpose for the Internet that phone books serve for the phone system.
Domain names serve the same purpose for the Internet that phone book entries serve for the phone system.
IP addresses serve the same purpose for the internet that phone numbers serve for the phone system.
Online pirates would circumvent the provisions of SOPA in the same way that the illegal drug users would circumvent the bill I described above.
The metaphor holds very well. If SOPA were to be implemented, software and media pirates would simply resort to using IP addresses rather than domain names.
Try it yourself. Go to http://www.google.com/ (http://www.google.com/). After that, try going to http://74.125.227.80/ (http://74.125.227.80/). If Google were to be blacklisted under SOPA, the first link would stop working (there would no longer be a DNS entry for the domain name "www.google.com"), but the second, functionally equivalent link would not (resolving an IP address does not involve the DNS, and SOPA implements its blacklist through DNS). Circumventing SOPA's blacklisting would be trivial for the technologically savvy (for example, pirates). The only people who stand to be hurt by such a bill would be individuals who lacked the knowledge to access blacklisted sites. For the most part, this would include the general population and not pirates. If for no other reason, this bill should be opposed because it is grossly ineffectual.
How in the Lords name we got to a belief we are entitled to what other produced. If they say no you can be a adult and live with it.
It might be possible that some in favor of the bill feel entitled, but I see the legal question of copyright enforcement as enforcing a balance between copyright holders' right to profit off of their own ideas without fear of unjustified harm or loss and the public's right to use both purchased and freely obtained copyrighted material in fair ways without fear of unjustified retribution. It's in the best interest of copyright holders that laws protecting copyrights hold strong consequences for violators. It's in the best interests of the public that laws protecting copyrights be precise, targeting only legitimate infringements and not uses of copyright material that are fair.
There are some uses of copyrighted material that even the owners of that material should not be able to definitively say no to. Such uses include "commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)". Allowing copyright laws to blindly penalize for fair uses of copyrighted material would be an unjust infringement of free speech rights. Similarly, allowing any use of copyrighted material that was even remotely justifiable as some type of fair use would be an unjust infringement on copyrights. Appropriate copyright laws should balance these interests for the sake of the greatest mutual benefit.
Without fair use provisions in copyright laws, the copyright holders of Hello Kitty could send you cease and desist orders (and sue you for noncompliance) for discussing Hello Kitty to any extent in your blog, whether positive, negative, or neutral. With those provisions, you could claim in court that your commentary is fair use, and that you shouldn't need the copyright holder's permission to discuss, showcase, or criticize their product, even if it is copyrighted.
(*edit*)
It seems that SOPA is being amended to remove the DNS blocking aspects of it (http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/13/lamar-smith-removes-dns-blocking-from-sopa/), assuming that the article I stumbled upon is accurate. Having said that, it still has its other provisions, including advertising and payment service cutoff for suspected websites (and there seems to be no indication that the blacklist process has been amended to any notable degree). This seems to obsolete some, but not all, of the argument against SOPA.
It'd be interesting if the response to this modified bill was a universal adoption of foreign advertising and foreign/distributed payment services (a Brittish/Australian version of Google or Project Wonderful and Bitcoin, for example). You end up on SOPA's blacklist because some user posted a rickrolling link? So what? You no longer get US advertising and payment services, but you stopped using them a *long* time ago, and foreign companies don't have to stop serving you, because American laws don't apply to them!
(Or, at least, that's what I think would happen given SOPA's text; the US government could be trying to overstep that bound as well for all I know...)
Though the modified bill is not as bad in my eyes as it was, there could be some *serious* repercussions for domestic internet advertising and online payment companies if the above happens, particularly since it would be *much* easier for a website to transition to foreign support services than it would be to censor it's content to the degree that would be necessary to stay off of SOPA's blacklist. Hopefully, the domestic companies of those industries will realize that this would make them extremely unhappy and start fighting this bill harder. At the very least, though, it seems SOPA won't be breaking DNS services...
-
It's started!
Wikipedia has now started to black out all it's content as a means to protest SOPA. I tried browsing for some naval ship info. for model building research and got hit with a black screen saying the blackout would be in effect for 24-48 hours. :o
Has anyone else seen any other websites begin to blackout in protest?
-
Google has a black box instead of their banner name, but can still search.
-
It's just starting. ^^
-
I didn't notice at first because google ssl search uses a different banner.
-
A lot of my favorite comics have gone blackout. qwantz.com, inhuman-comic.com.
Reddit is blackout too of course. I think they started the whole thing.
For me at least, Twitter has become a stream of nothing but #SOPA. Here is an interesting one: "MPAA calls the Internet going dark in protest of SOPA "An abuse of power". In related news, the Eye of Sauron accuses Hobbits of terrorism." -beach_fox
By the way, I think it's still possible to see a Wikipedia article if you need it? The whole article still shows while the page is loading. My computer, at least, is slow enough that I can select all the text and copy it before the blackout notice appears. I then paste that into a word document.
-
In related news, the Eye of Sauron accuses Hobbits of terrorism."
:D :D :D :D :D
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhwuXNv8fJM
-
SOPA and PIPA have effectually died; enough of the support has withdrawn that they can't succeed.
Also, firefox 10 beta seems to have an irritating glitch which is causing two cursors to appear in my textbox >:(
-
SOPA and PIPA have effectually died; enough of the support has withdrawn that they can't succeed.
Maybe died for now, but eventually, this issue will pop up again in the future. I'm sure the entertainment industry won't give up without a fight. ;)
-
Annoyingly so, yes.
They'll definitely try some stupid half-baked (or unbaked) plan again in the future; its far more likely than the feds deciding to dump the money-siphoning MAFIAA by the side of the road or the MAFIAA growing a brain.
-
Anybody know anything about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (http://www.i-programmer.info/news/81-web-general/3649-sopa-and-pipa-shelved-but-is-acta-unstoppable.html)?
-
Anybody know anything about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (http://www.i-programmer.info/news/81-web-general/3649-sopa-and-pipa-shelved-but-is-acta-unstoppable.html)?
;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
-
Anybody know anything about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (http://www.i-programmer.info/news/81-web-general/3649-sopa-and-pipa-shelved-but-is-acta-unstoppable.html)?
;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
Lol, I was just bringing up the subject.
SOPA and PIPA may be dead, but there are still things like ACTA, which 1) is international and 2) has been signed by the US and several other countries. It's just a matter of enforcing the provisions set forth in ACTA.
-
Discussion on Reddit:
Internet, listen up. ACTA is scarier than both PIPA and SOPA, and it will be signed soon. Do your part (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/oquda/internet_listen_up_acta_is_scarier_than_both_pipa/)
It's funny, I always thought of ACTA as something we couldn't do anything about, it being a secret agreement and all. But we did something about SOPA didn't we? But I still don't know what can be done about ACTA.