|
|
On November 16 2011 18:17 Velocirapture wrote:
I am always of two minds about ip law. This law is clearly stepping over the line but lets face it, we are all guilty of participating in the tug of war. How many people do you know who legally bought even 50% of the content on their ipod? I have a huge number of friends who torrent literally the max amount of data possible at all times. As much as we all like to make the innocent "i am broke right now so im forced to download" claim, how often do we pay when a free option is readily available.
The owners of the ip are being @$$***** but pirates have been stepping up their game as well, I think we all need to cool it.
Did they ban blank cassette tapes when people realised you could record music from one tape to another? That is a breach of copyright right? likewise with video tapes...
I don't buy the whole "everyone's a pirate on the internet" shtick, there are a lot of people that buy their music and video games legally, and many more people that try it and buy if they think the content is any good.
On the other hand, I don't really see this doing much in terms of censoring the entire internet, putting it simply it'd cost too much resource, time and money to censor every copyright infringement out there. I'm assuming it will be a lot like copyright now, in that sites wont start getting attention unless companies can find them and think they are taking the piss (i.e. all the tv and movie streaming sites)
|
I almost want to see it pass to see what the backlash would be like....
I still don't want it to pass though.
|
Would be nice if you linked the White house petition site in the OP as well. I cant belive this would be ok'd even if it passed congress.
|
I wish I can help, but I am not a citizen of the US.
This bill is ridiculous....
|
so if this passes, what prevents us from just using tor to get around it?
|
China gets a lot of flack by the western world for censoring the internet and yet we keep seeing these stupid suggestions trying to pass into laws in many countries. Make up your mind politicians.
|
I'm not exaggerating when I say this is the 8th time I've read about a bill that's supposedly going to kill the internet, and how it can never come to pass.
Well, the internet's still here.
|
|
|
On November 16 2011 20:35 Cel.erity wrote:
I'm not exaggerating when I say this is the 8th time I've read about a bill that's supposedly going to kill the internet, and how it can never come to pass.
Well, the internet's still here.
This is the first bill which gives the US government the power to change the actual infrastructure of the entire worldwide internet (at least from a DNS point of view). This bill really does have the power to destabilize the internet and introduce a host of new security and consistency issues which actually could break the internet.
I'm not sure how much technical knowledge you have on the subject of the internet, but this really is bad news if they do what the bill says they can do, even from just a purely technical standpoint... not to mention the ethical issues.
|
|
|
On November 16 2011 20:35 Cel.erity wrote:
I'm not exaggerating when I say this is the 8th time I've read about a bill that's supposedly going to kill the internet, and how it can never come to pass.
Well, the internet's still here.
Me too. What separates this bill from the ACTA one several months ago? Did the protesting and such really stop ACTA?
|
So i'm sure there are a lot of good youtube videos in those links, but funny enough, the one link to the bill it's self isn't in the OP.
On November 16 2011 23:04 driftme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 20:35 Cel.erity wrote:
I'm not exaggerating when I say this is the 8th time I've read about a bill that's supposedly going to kill the internet, and how it can never come to pass.
Well, the internet's still here. This is the first bill which gives the US government the power to change the actual infrastructure of the entire worldwide internet (at least from a DNS point of view). This bill really does have the power to destabilize the internet and introduce a host of new security and consistency issues which actually could break the internet. I'm not sure how much technical knowledge you have on the subject of the internet, but this really is bad news if they do what the bill says they can do, even from just a purely technical standpoint... not to mention the ethical issues.
What does the bill say.
|
On November 16 2011 19:05 Nutm3g wrote:
Did they ban blank cassette tapes when people realised you could record music from one tape to another? That is a breach of copyright right? likewise with video tapes...
The legal difference in the Cassette and VHS recording is that they are both forms of Analog Media. Each time you make a copy of the source material you are actually losing quality and therefore it is not as sharp as the original. This made it "OK" to record television shows and songs on the radio and you would not face legal action because the original is still a far higher quality product.
Today, however, we have digital recording means which gives a 1-1 ration in the data sent and recorded. You can record songs and video at 100% quality from the original source, which makes the rule of law a lot more complicated.
All things accounted for... this bill still sucks in my opinion and the Internet should not be censored. There is such a huge ability for big business to stomp out opposition.
|
On November 16 2011 23:40 Nefariously wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 20:35 Cel.erity wrote:
I'm not exaggerating when I say this is the 8th time I've read about a bill that's supposedly going to kill the internet, and how it can never come to pass.
Well, the internet's still here. Me too. What separates this bill from the ACTA one several months ago? Did the protesting and such really stop ACTA?
The main big difference is that this bill gives all the power to the US government, and doesnt form a multinational governing body.
Also, to the people who can't believe that this would have a worldwide effect, here's a quoted text from the bill:
20 SEC. 4. ELIMINATING THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO STEAL
21 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ONLINE.
22 (a) COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION.—
23 (1) IN PERSONAM.—A qualifying plaintiff may
24 commence an in personam action against— 16
GRA11400 S.L.C.
1 (A) a registrant of a domain name used by
2 an Internet site dedicated to infringing activi-
3 ties; or
4 (B) an owner or operator of an Internet
5 site dedicated to infringing activities accessed
6 through a domain name.
7 (2) IN REM.—If through due diligence a quali-
8 fying plaintiff is unable to find a person described
9 in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no
10 such person found has an address within a judicial
11 district of the United States, the Attorney General
12 may commence an in rem action against a domain
13 name used by an Internet site dedicated to infring-
14 ing activities.
basically this means that a non-government entity (corporation, etc) can file an action against the owner of a website "dedicated to infringing activities" (a phrase which is very broadly and vaguely defined in this bill), even if that website is based in another country and doesn't break any of that country's laws. If they do not reside in the US, the attorney general can just take action against the website. NO DUE PROCESS HERE!
|
On November 16 2011 23:46 woody60707 wrote:So i'm sure there are a lot of good youtube videos in those links, but funny enough, the one link to the bill it's self isn't in the OP. Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 23:04 driftme wrote:On November 16 2011 20:35 Cel.erity wrote:
I'm not exaggerating when I say this is the 8th time I've read about a bill that's supposedly going to kill the internet, and how it can never come to pass.
Well, the internet's still here. This is the first bill which gives the US government the power to change the actual infrastructure of the entire worldwide internet (at least from a DNS point of view). This bill really does have the power to destabilize the internet and introduce a host of new security and consistency issues which actually could break the internet. I'm not sure how much technical knowledge you have on the subject of the internet, but this really is bad news if they do what the bill says they can do, even from just a purely technical standpoint... not to mention the ethical issues. What does the bill say.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=285713¤tpage=6#112
i linked to the bill here.
|
On November 16 2011 23:46 BoomChild wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 19:05 Nutm3g wrote:
Did they ban blank cassette tapes when people realised you could record music from one tape to another? That is a breach of copyright right? likewise with video tapes...
The legal difference in the Cassette and VHS recording is that they are both forms of Analog Media. Each time you make a copy of the source material you are actually losing quality and therefore it is not as sharp as the original. This made it "OK" to record television shows and songs on the radio and you would not face legal action because the original is still a far higher quality product. Today, however, we have digital recording means which gives a 1-1 ration in the data sent and recorded. You can record songs and video at 100% quality from the original source, which makes the rule of law a lot more complicated..
Totally false. Cite your references? There's no legal basis for what you said.
Also, you clearly know nothing about "digital recording". An mp3 (probably the most commonly shared type of file.. just guessing), is definitely not 1:1. In fact, a very small percentage of shared content online is actually uncompressed and therefore 1:1. Even if uncompressed, there is information that usually isn't shared (subtitles on a bluray rip for example).
I am glad you see the bill as the terrible thing it is though =]
Here's another great read:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20093304-38/five-essential-changes-to-protect-ip-act/
|
On November 16 2011 01:31 Blacktion wrote:
I dont get this, in the OP link it says "Google knows it"
I get this is a BS law thats being forced through by lobbyists for the entertainment industry, but dont companies like google have a lot more money and therefore stronger lobbies in washington?
Sorry if ive got something obvious wrong but im not from the US
Google is lobbying against it. A hundred other companies as big as google are lobbying in favor of it ): .
|
On November 16 2011 23:57 Alpino wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 01:31 Blacktion wrote:
I dont get this, in the OP link it says "Google knows it"
I get this is a BS law thats being forced through by lobbyists for the entertainment industry, but dont companies like google have a lot more money and therefore stronger lobbies in washington?
Sorry if ive got something obvious wrong but im not from the US Google is lobbying against it. A hundred other companies as big as google are lobbying in favor of it ): .
Democracy at it's finest, right guys? 
I don't even think this is such a big deal though. At least it isn't something completely new by a long shot.
For the last roughly 3 years if I were to type the adress for PirateBay in my browser I'd get redirected to a page where my ISP say I'm not allowed to view that page. The same is true for every other ISP in Denmark. This is because of a civil lawsuit from a group of IP controllers against one ISP (every other major ISP followed the ruling afterwards)
Isn't this bill basicly the same thing?
|
On November 16 2011 23:52 driftme wrote:Totally false. Cite your references? There's no legal basis for what you said. Also, you clearly know nothing about "digital recording". An mp3 (probably the most commonly shared type of file.. just guessing), is definitely not 1:1. In fact, a very small percentage of shared content online is actually uncompressed and therefore 1:1. Even if uncompressed, there is information that usually isn't shared (subtitles on a bluray rip for example). I am glad you see the bill as the terrible thing it is though =] Here's another great read: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20093304-38/five-essential-changes-to-protect-ip-act/
That's the information I received from university professors in business law. It was a case study on why people are not charged with copyright infringement from recording off the radio but MP3 charges are brought up more often. It was during the Napster era which was a while ago so the information may not be accurate anymore, but it was more prominent then as the world was moving from Analog to Digital. In the grand scheme of things, regardless of the uncompressed format of MP3 files, the distribution of said files is still in a 1:1 ratio. The example was to show that if I have an digital audio file and send it to you, then you send it to your mother, then your mother sends it on etc etc etc, the total data loss from those transfers is insignificant compared to if I recorded a song off the Radio, then you recorded it off my cassette tape, then made another copy which is what the case study was attempting to show.
Obviously things have changed in the last 10 years, but the theory of information degredation is the same I believe.
Read the idea of the post before attacking the details of it. The general idea is correct even if the details are off a bit.
|
On November 17 2011 00:14 BoomChild wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 23:52 driftme wrote:Totally false. Cite your references? There's no legal basis for what you said. Also, you clearly know nothing about "digital recording". An mp3 (probably the most commonly shared type of file.. just guessing), is definitely not 1:1. In fact, a very small percentage of shared content online is actually uncompressed and therefore 1:1. Even if uncompressed, there is information that usually isn't shared (subtitles on a bluray rip for example). I am glad you see the bill as the terrible thing it is though =] Here's another great read: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20093304-38/five-essential-changes-to-protect-ip-act/ That's the information I received from university professors in business law. It was a case study on why people are not charged with copyright infringement from recording off the radio but MP3 charges are brought up more often. It was during the Napster era which was a while ago so the information may not be accurate anymore, but it was more prominent then as the world was moving from Analog to Digital. In the grand scheme of things, regardless of the uncompressed format of MP3 files, the distribution of said files is still in a 1:1 ratio. The example was to show that if I have an digital audio file and send it to you, then you send it to your mother, then your mother sends it on etc etc etc, the total data loss from those transfers is insignificant compared to if I recorded a song off the Radio, then you recorded it off my cassette tape, then made another copy which is what the case study was attempting to show. Obviously things have changed in the last 10 years, but the theory of information degredation is the same I believe. Read the idea of the post before attacking the details of it. The general idea is correct even if the details are off a bit.
No, what I am disputing is really the whole point of your post, comparing why tapes are legal and mp3 distribution isn't. While you're correct that the ACTION of copying a copy on a tape reduces quality and so it isn't 1:1, the reduction of quality for an mp3 happens before distribution. I haven't seen any court rulings that support you or your professor's claim. I'd argue that the main reason people aren't charged with copyright infringement for recording off the radio is because it can't be tracked. I hardly think I was nitpicking your post - I think you maybe misunderstood the point your professor was trying to make. While both actions are technically copyright infringement, the digital file can be tracked, and can therefore lead to legal action; the tape recording effectively can't be tracked, and therefore is impossible to prosecute.
EDIT: Your post DOES bring up an interesting point in that this new legislation seeks to remove the tools people use to distribute infringing material, with no court decision, and no regard for legal use. It would be as if they decided to close any store that sold tapes or blank CDs/DVDs, with no court hearing, and minimal options for the store to defend itself even though it sells other things, and is not responsible for the content people put on tapes/CDs/DVDs, and may even be located in another country. Also, any reference to the store in the yellow pages or other search directory would be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
