New Bill Aims to Ban Copyright Infringing Websites

[omnimodis78]

[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]Its supposed to be a free web, not a "free but if someone doesn't like it, take it off" web.The next step is content control, much like North Korea or China does.[/citation]
I'm not taking a stab at your comment, because I like it and gave it the thumb-up, but you do realize that content control is already happening.

 

[ravewulf]

[citation][nom]leeashton[/nom]lol you government just caved in to large companys, bumnch of pussies[/citation]
They can't "cave in" to large companies if they were already bought and paid for by corporations from the beginning. Their campaigns are funded by corporations, they've got lobbyists by the tons, and an implicit promise that they will in turn be hired as well paid lobbyists when they leave public office.

 

[Guest]

By the way.... resistance is in our side... remember underground railroad... since the beginning of the US History it is the norm... let's resist it, it is necessary, it is mandatory, it is our freedom at stake... hackers of the world unite.....

 

[koga73]

bhaalloalhahaalol
lets call it what it is... an internet blacklist.

besides that, no content on the internet can ever by truly blocked so such a proposal is stupid in the first place. using proxy servers or dns servers located outside the country will get around the blockade.

if you do get around the security and access a blacklisted site... what are they going to do? throw you in jail?!

 

[techguy911]

This is a slippery slope to full censorship of the web my guess is they don't like protestors so they could make their websites and communication on the internet illegal and block those sites.

Seems kind of illegal in itself the mpaa and riaa lobbying the government to get their agenda passed by giving them money sounds like bribery if you ask me.

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]mykem[/nom]So what the bill really is saying is that my internet provider will now be responsible for content filtering the web against infringing sites... Translation: Slow internet, Double the cost. Typical Government.[/citation]

oh you compeltely forgot the possiblity of web viewing monopolizing , i could seriously see a company blocking acess to a competitors site, stating copy infringment as the reason. this bil needs to be shot down like a rabid dog.

 

[techguy911]

What about the first amendment, net neutrality law and also it is illegal to block advertising as well they would be breaking all the above laws.

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]Desertlax[/nom]So is this just the government trying to say...."Git ahf Mah Internetz"....while everyone who understand how "the webs" works raises an eyebrow and chuckles to themselves?[/citation]

actually you are wrong , it isn't the goverment saying that it is big coperations saying that. these companies truely believe they bought and own thier consumers simply becasue they relase a product. This is American the land of the censored and the home of Greed.

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]It's the government telling ISPs that it's ok to exponentially increase access fees for customers....
You sure about that? I thought it was them exercising their rights to appear even dumber to the rest of the world than they already do....If you want to see other proof of political stupidity....look at the US "Do Not Call" registry and it's guidelines. If you've done business with the company, a sub-sidiary of said company or one of it's affiliates within 90 days, they can call you whether you're on the "Do Not Call" registry or not. Also, it takes up to 90 days for you to be "officially" added to the registry....and they have 90 days from the date of addition to stop calling you (180 days total....that's roughly 6 months from date of registration that they can STILL call you. So, in other words, it's utterly useless.[/citation]


that reminds me of this asshole law they passed in cali and texas reccently that allows such companies to press cahrges on you if your cuss them otu when they call you with harrassing calls. me i live in texas ,a dn i work of a 3 time rule .. they call me three times in one day if they call more than that they are getting an earfull , so far haven't had any cops knock on my door yet over this stupid law

 

[Wamphryi]

Well I am going to fly in the face of public opinion on this one. The protection of copyrighted material is not a Freedom of Speech issue. If as people say they are opposed to the big corporates then they have the right not to purchase any products from the said corporates. One cannot simply walk into a DVD store and help themselves on the basis of freedom of speech and opposition to the corporations. That is called theft. The fact that people are doing it on line as opposed to stealing physical media does not change the fact that theft is theft. Over the years I have met many people who download a few TB's of data a month. This of course clogs the Internet and results in slower Internet for legitimate users. I cannot believe that one person here would accept a situation where they were told at the end of the week they would not be paid for their work. Nor would anyone tolerate product they produced being walked off with without payment. It seems that people simply want to disguise their desire to obtain product at the expense of someone else as an issue of a greater good. IMHO that is just a cop out. Theft is theft.

 

[koolkat574]

ISPs are not the police of the internet =o

 

[ansemx324]

[citation][nom]Wamphryi[/nom]Well I am going to fly in the face of public opinion on this one. The protection of copyrighted material is not a Freedom of Speech issue. If as people say they are opposed to the big corporates then they have the right not to purchase any products from the said corporates. One cannot simply walk into a DVD store and help themselves on the basis of freedom of speech and opposition to the corporations. That is called theft. The fact that people are doing it on line as opposed to stealing physical media does not change the fact that theft is theft. Over the years I have met many people who download a few TB's of data a month. This of course clogs the Internet and results in slower Internet for legitimate users. I cannot believe that one person here would accept a situation where they were told at the end of the week they would not be paid for their work. Nor would anyone tolerate product they produced being walked off with without payment. It seems that people simply want to disguise their desire to obtain product at the expense of someone else as an issue of a greater good. IMHO that is just a cop out. Theft is theft.[/citation]

I see what you're saying and I agree, stealing is wrong. However, this is not the argument at stake. This bill is to block websites that infringe on copyrights and blacklist them. But who gets to decide what websites are "bad"?

Last time I checked, companies are suing left and right (especially "some fruit company" that I know of...) for all sorts of patent and copyright infringement - and Ill tell you what, I don't always agree with the outcome of the courts because in a lot of the cases its just whoever threw the most money at the case. So are the sites being blocked going to deserve it? Probably not.

Again, I can see your point that theft online is like theft in stores, but this bill would NOT be an effective way of stopping that and would just lead to a lot of much worse issues. Like I said, who gets to decide whats blocked? Corporations are insane, you don't think they'll get their hand in that to block honest sites in order to knock out competition or that it will in some form be abused?

People will find a way to pirate with this in place, all it will do is open the gates for a whole world of bigger issues and won't fix anything it meant to

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]koga73[/nom]bhaalloalhahaalollets call it what it is... an internet blacklist.besides that, no content on the internet can ever by truly blocked so such a proposal is stupid in the first place. using proxy servers or dns servers located outside the country will get around the blockade.if you do get around the security and access a blacklisted site... what are they going to do? throw you in jail?![/citation]

actually they make it a felony, not just a civil crime, to upload any copywrited material and circumvent fair use laws, meaning that kid who posted a halo video, thats illegal, make a video with the tv on ad you can hear/see parts of it, that a felony with 7 years in prison, want to try to make an interesting podcast, inless you pay 70000+ $ for every instance of music, its illegal.

[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]that reminds me of this asshole law they passed in cali and texas reccently that allows such companies to press cahrges on you if your cuss them otu when they call you with harrassing calls. me i live in texas ,a dn i work of a 3 time rule .. they call me three times in one day if they call more than that they are getting an earfull , so far haven't had any cops knock on my door yet over this stupid law[/citation]

because they are already hated. think of it, if they actually go after people, how much more hate will they have?

the riaa already went after a 5 year old successfully, they dont care about public image at all.

[citation][nom]Wamphryi[/nom]Well I am going to fly in the face of public opinion on this one. The protection of copyrighted material is not a Freedom of Speech issue. If as people say they are opposed to the big corporates then they have the right not to purchase any products from the said corporates. One cannot simply walk into a DVD store and help themselves on the basis of freedom of speech and opposition to the corporations. That is called theft. The fact that people are doing it on line as opposed to stealing physical media does not change the fact that theft is theft. Over the years I have met many people who download a few TB's of data a month. This of course clogs the Internet and results in slower Internet for legitimate users. I cannot believe that one person here would accept a situation where they were told at the end of the week they would not be paid for their work. Nor would anyone tolerate product they produced being walked off with without payment. It seems that people simply want to disguise their desire to obtain product at the expense of someone else as an issue of a greater good. IMHO that is just a cop out. Theft is theft.[/citation]

you really dont get it do you? not just the whole piracy issue, where you actually get a lesser charge if you actually stole the product and killed the clerk and took the cash register too, but also this law.

take a look at most people youtube videos, they put a song in it, they use a show for a few seconds, some show a 30 second clip. all those would be a felony, and 7 years in prison. this includes recording a viodegame and posting it online. with fair use thrown out the window, its possible to get game faqs taking off the internet because its all in the official strategy guide.

you see how im taking this law, its not so much about real pirated content but a gateway to put people in jail for EXTREAMLY minor fair use offenses, something that the riaa and mpaa have wanted to do sense the internet came about.

please, dont look at what you think the law should be used for, look at the people who sue children and dead people and think how they will apply it.

 

[Guest]

lol you call it theft i dont, theft to me means someone lost something(someone direct) the only people that can possible loose from lets say pirating a game is noone. gaming is so big even if your games get pirated you stil make enough money. lets quickly work out a simple smartphone game. if it sels for 2$ and 50 000 ppl paid for it thats 100 000$. thats alot of money for such a small app.

so no i dont see piracy as theft in the case where the other guy looses. the programmers always get their pay, if they dont then the company they work for has to pay them. they dont get paid end product, they get paid monthly via development. so more sales doesnt necesarily mean more in the pocket for the programmers.

so yea piracy is not theft, if you wanna steal a game that only 3 ppl has paid for and its actualy good then so be it you actualy stole something. but if u steal a game where 50 000+ people bought it... i dont care he made alot of money from that.

 

[Wamphryi]

A few arguments here that I am responding to for clarification.

1) Opposing a bad law that is either too draconian or fails to deliver on what it sets out to achieve is fair enough. Were my point of contention comes in is that it is not a matter of free speech.

2) The Internet is changing the way content is made and delivered. A lot of people now publish directly particularly with regard to Ebooks and Music. These artists are not necessarily backed by large corporates and pirating sites provide the little guys content as well.

3) There is nothing that is to big to fail. Examples are the huge car companies and banks that fell over and had to be bailed out when the financial crisis hit.

4) While corporations have their dark side (and I include the fruity one) a lot of what we have today would not be here unless such organisations existed and took risks. The hardware that you use to post to this site is a good example. The thing is I do not like Apple as a company so I simply don't buy their products. That does not give me the right to steal Apple products however.

Essentially the finer arguments of lawmaking and corporate antics aside many people try to claim that they have an entitlement that they do not. They try and promote their own self interest as being noble and justified yet in fact it is all about them taking what they want at someone else's expense. Individual greed is just as unattractive as corporate greed. No matter how people paint it theft is theft be it from a shop, a persons home and yes a corporation.

There are people out there who actually pay for their products. If those people did not exist there would be nothing available to steal. So why should the people who pay have to carry those who simply want a free lunch?

 

[cats_Paw]

Bye Bye youtube?

 

[Djhg2000]

Future news headlines:
20% of all former US servers moves to Russia
Google announces new website for US users
Google moves HQ to Russia
YouTube officially shut down
Goodbye Internet, hello Freenet
Freenet co-founder claims current legal actions 'unconstitutional'
End of an era; Freenet shut down permanently
10 creative ways to stay in touch with your friends using pigeons

 

[Goldengoose]

[citation][nom]Wamphryi[/nom]Well I am going to fly in the face of public opinion on this one. The protection of copyrighted material is not a Freedom of Speech issue. If as people say they are opposed to the big corporates then they have the right not to purchase any products from the said corporates. One cannot simply walk into a DVD store and help themselves on the basis of freedom of speech and opposition to the corporations. That is called theft. The fact that people are doing it on line as opposed to stealing physical media does not change the fact that theft is theft. Over the years I have met many people who download a few TB's of data a month. This of course clogs the Internet and results in slower Internet for legitimate users. I cannot believe that one person here would accept a situation where they were told at the end of the week they would not be paid for their work. Nor would anyone tolerate product they produced being walked off with without payment. It seems that people simply want to disguise their desire to obtain product at the expense of someone else as an issue of a greater good. IMHO that is just a cop out. Theft is theft.[/citation]

You must of seen this coming!

The problem is not with the theft part - when we download items we know we are doing it illegally. Problem is that what they 'deem' a breach of this bill could differ a huge amount from one person to the next. The issue is that eventually it will spiral out of control and they will move onto something else (blocking controversial websites etc) and thats when our freedom of speech starts to get curbed.

 

[techguy911]

[citation][nom]Wamphryi[/nom]Well I am going to fly in the face of public opinion on this one. The protection of copyrighted material is not a Freedom of Speech issue. If as people say they are opposed to the big corporates then they have the right not to purchase any products from the said corporates. One cannot simply walk into a DVD store and help themselves on the basis of freedom of speech and opposition to the corporations. That is called theft. The fact that people are doing it on line as opposed to stealing physical media does not change the fact that theft is theft. Over the years I have met many people who download a few TB's of data a month. This of course clogs the Internet and results in slower Internet for legitimate users. I cannot believe that one person here would accept a situation where they were told at the end of the week they would not be paid for their work. Nor would anyone tolerate product they produced being walked off with without payment. It seems that people simply want to disguise their desire to obtain product at the expense of someone else as an issue of a greater good. IMHO that is just a cop out. Theft is theft.[/citation]

P2P only accounts for 14.3% of the internet feed used while netflix,youtube and others 53.6%

Source: http://www.sandvine.com/downloads/d...1.PDF]Sandvine Intelligent Broadband Networks

Netflix alone uses 32.7% of the internet traffic in north america.

 

[techguy911]

Oops messed up the above link its http://www.sandvine.com/downloads/d...al Internet Phenomena Report - Fall 2011.PDF]
Story of internet use is at CNN http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/tech/web/netflix-internet-bandwith-mashable/index.html?hpt=hp_t2]

So P2P is a very small percentage of the internet while legitimate steaming websites account for the most used bandwidth.