Originally Posted by Redrob (Post 18528729)

I have concerns that the law (SOPA) could be overreaching in restricting "fair use." However, in the USA, we have a long tradition (stare decisis) concerning fair use, parody, and other legitimate uses of copyrighted content.

Personally, I think the world was just fine before some giant media companies put a legitimate and popular face on blatant piracy. And, at this point, I can't say that I think a raging, uncontrolled Internet that steals everything that has been digitized for mass distribution is a good thing. Because their business models are built on the redistribution of other people's IP content, I'm sure some of the big players are walking the halls of Congress with bags of money, teams of lobbyists, and reams of emails based of fear tactics that this legislation will kill the internet.

As webmasters, both you and I know this isn't so.

It kinda reminds me of the Wild, Wild West with bank robbers (pirates), a new sheriff in town (SOPA), and a general population that just wants to get along.

I always thought the intention was to make the internet a tool for the betterment of mankind, not a safe haven for thieves and malcontents. The days of the Wild, Wild West of the Internet are coming to an end, hopefully. The time has come for the robbers to end their reign of terror. I hope whatever replaces the current situation is respectful of peoples property rights and privacy rights; but, the current situation is unsustainable in my eyes.

Just my opinion.:pimp

Originally Posted by DamianJ (Post 18531551)

Do speeding cameras reduce the incidences of people speeding? Oh yes! They do. Massively.

Does punishment reduce crime? Yes! Do people get rehabilitated? Yes!

Has ANY law that has been EVER passed had ANY impact on piracy? No. Has ANYTHING every had an impact on piracy? No. It is bigger than it ever ever was.

Hope that clarifies my position.

Piracy == bad.
Wasting money and time trying to stop piracy == pointless.

Originally Posted by Jel (Post 18531580)

Piracy is bigger than it ever was because it's so easy to do, and is really fuck all to do with the argument as to whether stronger anti-piracy measures should be taken. More people, more content, easier distribution - of course it's bigger than it ever was. You can say the same about speeding - more people speed now than ever before. It has fuck all relevance, but by your logic speed cameras should be done away with, as even though as a deterrent they work for many, the number of speeding drivers has still increased.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 18531553)

BS WP is the tool. not the user and therefore not to blame.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 18531553)

Libel is the crime of the libeler, not the medium the libel appears on. Disabling the ability to post any content and problem solved.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 18531553)

Can The New York Times post pictures they have no right to post? Will they or the advertiser be liable for submission? Will they be held responsible for posting pictures of naked children or allowing others to?

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 18531553)

We can live without Youtube.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 18531553)

We can have a open social interactive internet. Just not one where people are allowed to post the property of others. If I break into your house and steal your computer then set up a place where anyone can use it. Is that an open social interactive operation?

Originally Posted by Redrob (Post 18530901)

Glamourmodels, do you advertise on sites with pirated content?

Your site looks like any other dating site.

Originally Posted by Nautilus (Post 18531216)

And of course that wikileaks site should be saved at OUR expense. In order for it to survive, we need to allow hordes of parasites to eat us alive.

Piracy sites should continue to thrive because such is the price of freedom. And of course your views have nothing to do with the fact that all piracy sites have those cosy little ad spots available to push crap dating directories. It's strictly about freedom and fighting oppressive gummints.

Originally Posted by nextri (Post 18531613)

My bad, I mean services like wordpress.com or thumblr or other blogging networks. They couldn't operate if they had to moderate their users. Hence, limiting free speech.

So you're saying facebook is a medium and not a website that is responsible for the communication on it? If that's what you're saying, then you're basically saying it's the one who publishes something who should held responsible, not those who created the medium where the libel took place. Hence, facebook shouldn't be responsible for their users actions, and shouldn't need to moderate it.

And you want the ability to post any content on the internet without moderation impossible? You do know text is also content right? How is the prevention of posting any content on any website not a limitation of freedom?

Of course they can't, because they are the ones publishing it, and they are responsible for it. The same way that I should be responsible for me posting a picture that you own on facebook without your permission. Facebook created the communication platform, and shouldn't be responsible for my actions.

Dumbest argument ever.. A small percentage of youtube's videos are copyright infringments, but there are other ways to deal with it than preventing anyone from uploading anything. They have automatic filters that detects copyrighted sound and video, and automatically removes it, or replaces it with content they make money on. This is the way to fight piracy, and such technology should be further developed and made accessible for others. Not laws that limits the actions of everyone, just to get rid of a few peoples unlawful conduct.

That is the problem. You can't have an internet where you prevent people from posting other peoples property, without also limiting a lot of other forms of legit communication and free speech which isn't violating anyone's copyright. A discussion board (like gfy) couldn't work properly, if every post made by anyone would have to go through a moderation que before being published.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 18531382)

Can anyone point out how a law to stop piracy is going to effect my freedom please.

No smart Alec replies. Just point out what in the law makes them bringing down piracy a threat to my freedom to publish and read the truth or grab products that are put out by the owners of licenses that allows them to do this?

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 18531667)

I wondered how long the rope needed to be, for you to hang yourself.

So if it's on a Socially interactive site and put there for "Friends" it's not piracy.

Go think that one through to it's logical conclusion.

The rest is equally foolish. Without making youtube responsible for the content on their site, why should they filter it?

Maybe make the posted easily located and prosecuted. So Youtube has to verify the name and offline address and ID of the poster. Got anymore bright ideas?

Yes this is a hard one to crack. Thankfully for the betterment of all of us the powers that be are not willing to lie down and let crime go on. The argument "Nothing has worked so far, so give up trying." Is an argument of failures. If people adopted that attitude we would all be living in caves. It's mans ability to keep coming beck to a problem and trying to solve when previously his attempts didn't work, that got us out of the Stone Age.

It seems by the look of Nextri's sig, he doesn't work the hassle of being responsible for piracy. For a very good reason. It might stop him from making money. So when he says"You can't have an Internet." He means "I can't have a site and be responsible for it."

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 18531667)

Libel is the crime of the libeler, not the medium the libel appears on.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 18531685)

Nextri says it should be done by filters. With a penalty for those who don't filter or just relying on their good will? :upsidedow

Originally Posted by Frank21 (Post 18531699)

Lets just keep it realy simple with a example wich aplies to you personal, because someone who thinks that CNN, BBC, CNBC, FOX are not controlled by the real powerhouse cant be realy smart.

With this "law" any copywriteholder who ALLEGES that any copywrite MAY be violated is enough to shut down the whole website and or network where this message is posted on.
The webmaster therefore will not be checking if you use "fair use" or you actualy have written agreement of this cpoywrite, instead they will delete and bann you imediatly.
Since every webmaster has to review each and every post on his website otherwise he will certainly loose his website yuo will have to pay a fee for each message you post on a website. Lets say a tiny fee of 50 cent per forum post will make for you with 30,274 a whoppping $15,137 dollars for your GFY career.

I know this will be just ok for you to me this is NO FREEDOM.

Originally Posted by nextri (Post 18531703)

Your twisting my words.
I'm not saying it's not piracy if I put it up for friends. It is, and I should be held responsible for it, and pay the price. But not those who created the platform I publish it on. That is actually what you said as well:

Those who publish, should be responsible. Not those who created the technology that let me publish, not those who provide the hosting for the website, and not the isp's who allow traffic to it.

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 18531745)

Originally Posted by nextri (Post 18531506)

Answer this simple question:
Should facebook have to have moderators to moderate each and every status update, user comment and photo upload from their 700 million users?

Should youtube be forced to approve each and every one of the thousands of videos that gets uploaded every minute?
more specific so it doesn't destroy the very basis of an open social interactive internet.

Originally Posted by Frank21 (Post 18531699)

Since every webmaster has to review each and every post on his website otherwise he will certainly loose his website

I know this will be just ok for you to me this is NO FREEDOM.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 18531382)

Can anyone point out how a law to stop piracy is going to effect my freedom please.

No smart Alec replies. Just point out what in the law makes them bringing down piracy a threat to my freedom to publish and read the truth or grab products that are put out by the owners of licenses that allows them to do this?

Originally Posted by porno jew (Post 18533030)

funny how selfish people are - they would prefer to strangle the greatest invention since the printing press so they can have the sales they made with paysites in 2002. sad.

Originally Posted by onedree (Post 18530341)

he wants to play the game like a hot shot ... :1orglaugh
everyone else backed off except for this little twink punk ...
Now he and his little bro club cant handle it ...

http://i.imgur.com/psrli.jpg

Originally Posted by Nautilus (Post 18529606)

They earn proportionally more and should be able to hire additional staff or implement relevant tech. If they do not earn enough money to do that, it's their problem how to monetize their traffic.

But how hard it actually is to police even a huge site? Not that hard actually. Here are a few simple steps:

1. Implement DFP. That will stop infringment cold for all content that is registered in the database. Does not require more staff at all, works automatically.

2. Ban repeat infringers and delete ALL of their uploads upon recieving X number of valid DMCAs from trusted copyright holders. That works very well too because there are usually relatively few uploaders that are responsible for most of the copyright infringement. Ban them and your piracy numbers will be reduced a great deal in an instant.

3. Do not encourage piracy in any form. Make sure to make it clear for surfers that you have zero tolerance policy for that kinda shit and you'll kill their account with everything that was in it no matter if some of the uploaded files might be legal. That serves as the great deterrent and makes surfers think twice before stealing shit.

4. Do not reward uploaders in any form, unless they're proven copyright holders. Since many uploaders do it for money, cutting them their income immediatly discourages them from pirating shit.

5. Use "report abuse" buttons to engage community in finding infringments. With that you get huge additional task force that is very effective and totally free for you.

6. Use stricter registration procedures, such as phone verification. That will serve as the great deterrent too.

How hard is it to implement any of the above? Not hard at all, and it all costs either peanuts or nothing at all, even for a big site. So when piracy singers bitch and moan about those impossible "burdens" they are just lieing as always. Getting rid of piracy is not the matter of any impossible burden, it is only a question of whether you really WANT to do that or not. With SOPA in effect, all UCG sites will suddenly WANT to get rid of piracy for real (because their half assed attempts that they're demonstrating today will not fly in courts anymore), and they'll surely be able to do that.

Originally Posted by Redrob (Post 18533355)

The owners of the intellectual property should give up nothing to stop piracy.
No quid pro quo for thieves......stealing is just wrong and should be eliminated.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18533156)

do you trust dfp enough to willing give up your copyright to all your content if it mistakenly tags fair use/ or authorized content.

Originally Posted by RycEric (Post 18531355)

Not quite.. I already told you that's on the models not them.

Originally Posted by Nautilus (Post 18533505)

I'll consider giving up my copyright in case of false positives if you're willing to do the following:

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18531575)

so why not support the amendment to this bill that would void all copyright of the complaining companies if their complaint was against authorized actions (either fair use or authorized or other non infringing).

Originally Posted by Redrob (Post 18533355)

The owners of the intellectual property should give up nothing to stop piracy.

No quid pro quo for thieves......stealing is just wrong and should be eliminated.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 18533450)

gideongallery
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.


I have gideongallery on "ignore", but judging from your reply to him I can guess what stupid shit he is saying:

He's saying that people who actually put the work in to create things should put all their work in the public domain in some kind of stupid bet with him?

The guy is so goddamned predictable. And such a total and compete failure in life.

Originally Posted by sicone (Post 18532585)

The law has a much wider range for what will be legal to take down a site, it's not just focused on piracy. It allows corporations and the government free reign over the internet including the ability to remove entire sites and domains from the internet and their owner.

This would be great if it was for stolen works and copyrighted materials only. However the 2 bills being presented (SOPA and E-Parasite) also allow for these actions to be taken against sites that the government and big business doesn't want Joe Public to read as well. Any sites with negative opinions on say the president will be removed permanently, any of the OWS sites and people posting photos, videos and whatever else they made themselves in support would be gone. If a 9/11 type of event was to occur after these bills passed we would be force fed and only allowed to view or post about what the government wanted us too. Think of the internet in China and what they are allowed or not allowed to view.

If my name was Paul Markham, I could complain that your website is harmful to my good name and business I run and your site would be gone. If you write a blog telling about a bad experience at a hotel, that hotel would be allowed to take over and remove your site with no notification to you, no hearing and no legal recourse for you.

So sure, these bills would efficiently put a end to internet piracy, but it would also put a end to the internet, the sharing of information (experiences/reviews/thoughts). The removal of any type of content that any single person may find offensive and not fit to be viewed by the public will be included and removed under these laws. I have the feeling that may just very well include nudity and porn.

You also think that sites such as you tube and facebook should have employees to moderate every post made correct? These laws also stat that ISP's must poilce themselves as well. Every keystroke you make on the internet, every email sent/received would be read, and every url visited and link clicked tracked. Not only is that a huge invasion of privacy but how much will the cost of internet services skyrocket to cover the cost of the number of employees needed to to track all that.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18533773)

your false positive take away someone constitutional right to free speech

Originally Posted by Nautilus (Post 18534260)

Copyright is the constitutional right too. Your stealing takes it away from a person whose intellectual property you seed on torrent.