New legislation against Pirates, good, bad ?
 

First, sorry if this has already been posted, looked but could not find it.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...#ixzz10Aeo5Tmt

There was something similar posted a few days ago and I can remember something being posted about if domain names are taken then the sites will just end up using ip addresses instead.

Search for ACTA on GFY.
Longs reads in links to pdf's...

Thanx, will do.

I think it is bad. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I can't wait to see the Justice Department serve court orders on thousands of ISPs and other people with DNS servers...

"For domains not under U.S. control, the bill would demand that internet service providers in the United States block resolution of the address upon a court order, but overseas users would not be impacted."

America... FUCK YA!

Once the USA throws it's big dick on the table, much of the rest of the world will get in line right behind them.

There's to much money being lost to pirates, so a resolution is only a little time away.

Recording, film, programming, games and porn have all lost money. Most of that money would of ended up in the US and EU. Expect change to come soon.

I hope.

Anyone and I mean ANYONE who thinks ACTA is good, is a dick.

You want CONGRESS to censor the internet?

Really?

/me shakes his head

Keep shaking your head then.

Enforcing copyright and straight up censorship are two different animals.

.

And what "baby" would that be?



.

You know it, I know it, Congress may know it.

Bu it will take them less than 5 minutes to forget.

The only good part about it is when they take care of HUGE sites, I mean... HUGE PIRATED SITES.. with TERA BYTES of stolen content....

However, if this law is applied to any site (even those with only 5 screenshots of a pixelated cam), then 99% of sites are going to have a problem.. Specially considering that nowadays there are many USER GENERATED sites, where is hard to control if a user uploads a 300 pixel pixelated screenshot that belongs to a webcam site... In those cases a DMCA is more than enough to correct it.

But I agree with this law if its applied to the MASSIVE monsters ruining the business.. And not only adult, but mainstream too. Those Monsters are out of control right now.

Using the IP instead of domain is no solution to the monsters, since the IP can be taken down too.

.

why do you mention piratebay? Pirate bay doesnt offer warez, its a search engine that can easily find it... can find it just as easily on google but you dont see google getting shut down..

This stuff gets talked about constantly, it seems a little too bold to actually pass. Basically the purpose of this law would in large part be to find a way to prevent foreign websites from being accessed by Americans. Because simply shutting down American based piraters is worthless, as there are enough of these popular websites overseas that it would barely make a dent. In fact the foreign market for pirating would thrive and become bigger than ever. I don't see how they get this passed, I'm sure there's a large group of people that want it to happen, but it's something that sounds impossible to implement. There are already laws in place to shut down websites, but this seems more of the trying to throw a glass dome over the internet approach.

Seems like a good idea, but it could have unforeseen consequences.

The pirates' day of reckoning is long overdue.

Because without any control it's evolved into such a great place. :upsidedow :upsidedow

Worst idea ever! This could be the start of something very very bad. Who's to decide what site should be shut down? What's to stop them from just shutting down sites left and right. And once this is implemented, it's probably gonna evolve into something worse, where they'll end up shutting down questionable adult sites as well. (in their opinion) Hell no. this is not good.

For young people it has.

For grandma's such as yourself I imagine it's all a bit scary.

The lack of control has encouraged development of a lot of useful things though.

ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom

EU governments are planning to even go after individual downloaders next to pirates:
(This was just on the news radio here so it's fresh info I guess)
http://translate.google.com/translat...aanpakken.html

Source/plans for 2009 to 2014 concerning piracy:
http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/ima...adopted-en.doc

If you were in the porn business and had your content being stolen you would feel much, much differently.

And stopping copyright infringement is a LOT different than "censorship"
If a site doesn't want to be blocked...then don't fucking steal.

No I wouldn't. I assure you. No different at all.

I find it staggering that pornographers want the GOVERNMENT to force all ISPs to censor and block access to sites they deem are inappropriate. I find it staggering that people would try and adopt a law where you would have your internet access removed if you are simply accused of committing a crime.

I kinda am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't actually know what the bill has in it, and just assumed it was to help you stop people making money from pirated content. Oh no.

Here's something from boing boing.

The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:

* * That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

* * That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

* * That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

* * Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)

http://boingboing.net/2009/11/03/sec...right-tre.html

Further reading at
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...ta-is-here.ars

Or if you want to just watch a video explaining why CNET call it "the super evil ACTA agreement" :
http://www.cnet.com/8301-19709_1-10466200-10.html

Piracy is bad Robbie, everyone knows that, but ACTA is not the solution. You're already beating the fuckers with what you are already doing. You should be being flown over 1st class to amsterdam to give the keynote and teaching people how you have stopped your content being stolen.