Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA

[jillian]

You should read up on how far this bill goes. Your tune might change. For example, if a troll pops up on here, links to site with pirated material, then THIS SITE would be shut down under SOPA.

Most folks are anti-piracy these days. What they don't like is how far this bill goes in handing out power to shut down sites that are not themselves hosting pirated materials. It isn't just sites like Wikipedia and Youtube in danger, any site that allows user comments, file uploads, or sharing could end up going down under this.

What happens under SOPA if my 3-year-old son draws a pretty decent representation of a copyrighted cartoon character, and I post it on Facebook?

That's right, under SOPA, I can go to jail.

no. that would still be covered by existing copyright law. and fair use will always be fair use.

 

[Vast LWC]

no. that would still be covered by existing copyright law. and fair use will always be fair use.

The original drawing would be "fair use", if it were drawn as part of an educational plan, etc.

Posting it on the internet would be copyright infringement.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use:

“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Nothing in that covers posting a child's reproduction of copyrighted material.

Now, you may say a judge would probably let you off for that. But is the judiciary system always fair? No. And you shouldn't have to go to court for that in the first place.

 

[hortysir]

punt...figured

Not at all.

I'm not accountable to you. Only the artists and creators of the tubes I use.
I never remove signatures or watermarks.

Where's the TM on your avvy, hypocrite?

hardy, i dont want the bills to pass, unlike you and the others.

And that kills that argument...

Well yes you are a thief until proven otherwise.

That would make you the thief

 

[Dr.Traveler]

So liberals think it's okay to steal as long as it's from the rich.



got it

BTW, Chris Dodd is behind this stupidity. You know, Liberal Senator Chris Dodd. So does that make you trust this more or less when you realize it's a bill giving censorship power over the net to the lawyers masterminded by a liberal?

Um lamar smith of texas a republican created this bill...least one of them....so the right cant claim they are smaller government. Of course they couldnt anyways since a majority voted for ndaa....but why kick them while they are down.

Furthermore i think this debate really separates the drive by commenter from the person who really gets it.
I notices certain people vacated this thread rather fast once it was shown they had no clue.

Dodd has been pushing it from his cushy new job as head of the Motion Picture Association of America. And the bill did have pretty much bipartisan support until people actually figured out what the heck was going on.

Part of the problem here is you had a bill written by a wealthy industry with deep pockets and handed off to folks that are pretty much out of touch with what the internet is and how it works. All they saw were the campaign contributions trickling in.

 

[hortysir]

From: SOPA explained: What it is and why it matters - Jan. 17, 2012

Isn't copyright infringement already illegal?

Yes. The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act lays out enforcement measures.


Let's say a YouTube user uploads a copyrighted song. Under the current law, that song's copyright holders could send a "takedown notice" to YouTube. YouTube is protected against liability as long as it removes the content within a reasonable timeframe.
When it gets a DMCA warning, YouTube has to notify the user who uploaded the content. That user has the right to file a counter-motion demonstrating that the content doesn't infringe on any copyrights. If the two sides keep disagreeing, the issue can go to court.
The problem with DMCA, critics say, is that it's useless against overseas sites.​

SOPA tackles that by moving up the chain. If you can't force overseas sites to take down copyrighted work, you can at least stop U.S. companies from providing their services to those sites. You can also make it harder for U.S. Internet users to find and access the sites.


But SOPA goes further than DMCA and potentially puts site operators on the hook for content their users upload. A site could be deemed a SOPA scofflaw if it takes "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" that its service will be used for copyright infringement. That kind of swampy language has tech companies spooked.​

"Deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" that it's service will be used for copyright infringement...that means that USMB would have to take the necessary actions to ENSURE that there was no copyright infringement.


Probably, all avatars and sigs would have to be authorized by staff so that infringements like The T's Mel Gibson avatar would not be used. We would not be able to post any images without authorization. Probably all links would have to be scrutinized.


And if USMB did not have these safeguards in place, they would be liable.


[FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I could see some major trouble with this law.[/FONT]​

Another Forum I belong to, where we do alot of PS stuff and posting pics and cartoons has exactly such a policy.
We manage

 

[Uncensored2008]

I didn't see another thread about this, so I thought I'd start one.

Wikipedia, and a number of other popular websites will black out tomorrow in protest of SOPA and PIPA.

Thoughts?

It's kinda stupid, but it's their site.

Google is doing something similar.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So I'm not allowed to rip my new Rush cd to my laptop?

Sure you are.

You're just not allowed to rip MY new Rush cd to your laptop.

See how that works?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Something needs to be done about Warez and IRC. Piracy virtually destroyed PC gaming, and that pisses me off. Grab a MIRC client and you too can be stealing thousands in games and movies in a matter of moments. Piracy is out of control, there is no defense of it nor question.

But SOPA isn't the answer. SOPA is typical of the heavy handed approach government is so well known for. Foxes keep killing the chickens, so SOPA shoots the family dog to combat the problem. Wikipedia doesn't encourage copyright violation and does a reasonable job of removing copyrighted material when found. To punish Wikipedia, or YouTube, Facebook, et al, for the sins of users who are violating the TOS of those sites is absurd and the wrong approach to dealing with the issue.

 

[KissMy]

This legislation means that we will no longer be able to quote or link a source or video.

Wikipedia is assembled from quotes & facts from books, magazines & news stories.

It will allow the USG to block foreign websites ie: (WikiLeaks).

This is not about OWS pirating games, music & movies. This will black-out our ability to view & discover what is happening in our world. The foreigners will know more about the world than we will here in the USA.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

i'm all for disemination of information.

i'm confused as to why anyone thinks they're entitled to steal someone else's intellectual property.

Exactly what it is. People who want to be able to download music and movies.

Your confirmation bias is showing.

I don't download music or movies nor do I have any intention of doing so, and I adamantly oppose this legislation.

I believe you said you had Rush's new album...which doesn't come out until later this year.

 

[del]

Exactly what it is. People who want to be able to download music and movies.

Your confirmation bias is showing.

I don't download music or movies nor do I have any intention of doing so, and I adamantly oppose this legislation.

I believe you said you had Rush's new album...which doesn't come out until later this year.

does being a shill for MPAA pay well?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Your confirmation bias is showing.

I don't download music or movies nor do I have any intention of doing so, and I adamantly oppose this legislation.

I believe you said you had Rush's new album...which doesn't come out until later this year.

does being a shill for MPAA pay well?

Honestly I'm more concerned with the music industry than the movie industry (because I'm more familiar with it). I know someone who used to own a very popular music store here. Guess what online pirating did? But him out of business.

It's not about saving the record companies-they make money from tours/concerts (most people don't realize this). Pirating music hurts the engineers, soundboard techs, printing companies, music stores, etc. that all benefit from new music releases.

It doesn't just take money away from rich musicians (which most of them are not) and record companies. It kills jobs for many, many more people. Yet people are still for this. Hard working people who make a honest living losing their businesses and ability to support themselves and their families, all because some people want to steal music is not acceptable.

edit: with that said I never stated on this board that I'm for this new legislation. But more needs to be done to stop pirating online.

 

[newpolitics]

Good. This is an incredibly powerful move by wikipedia, and I am incredibly happy to see action taken by companies actually acting responsible for once. This has nothing to do with stealing- that is only a front, but with our government policing the internet in a way that is inappropriate and would make the flow of free information impossible. Don't you people get that? Stop defending giant corporations and think about yourselves for a second. Why didn't this happen years ago when this was actually an issue? No one talks about online theft anymore. Its funny how now, with the masses become more and more educated about the reality of corporate/government activity, the corruption, largely as a result of the Occupy Wallstreet movement, they so conveniently choose now to write up this bill, along with the NDAA. They are obviously nervous about having an informed public, and this is their response. They do it under the guise of 'protecting copyrighted' information,' but it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the government blocking information to the masses so they can protect their own clandestine and corrupt ways.

 

[manifold]

Exactly what it is. People who want to be able to download music and movies.

Your confirmation bias is showing.

I don't download music or movies nor do I have any intention of doing so, and I adamantly oppose this legislation.

I believe you said you had Rush's new album...which doesn't come out until later this year.

Confirmation bias topped off with poor reading comprehension.

You're on a roll buddy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I believe you said you had Rush's new album...which doesn't come out until later this year.

does being a shill for MPAA pay well?

Honestly I'm more concerned with the music industry than the movie industry (because I'm more familiar with it). I know someone who used to own a very popular music store here. Guess what online pirating did? But him out of business.


It's not about saving the record companies-they make money from tours/concerts (most people don't realize this). Pirating music hurts the engineers, soundboard techs, printing companies, music stores, etc. that all benefit from new music releases.

It doesn't just take money away from rich musicians (which most of them are not) and record companies. It kills jobs for many, many more people. Yet people are still for this. Hard working people who make a honest living losing their businesses and ability to support themselves and their families, all because some people want to steal music is not acceptable.

edit: with that said I never stated on this board that I'm for this new legislation. But more needs to be done to stop pirating online.

I don't think it was "pirating" that put him out of business. I think it was the internet in general.

There are more legal ways to buy music online than there are illegal ways to download it. Retail CD sales are dropping for the same reason that 8-tracks don't sell anymore.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

IT IS ANTI-freedom and against the consitution! Impeachments and removals should be had if they pass this anti-freeom bill!

You are not free to steal what belongs to someone else.

SOPA won't stop people stealling. On top of that, stealing is not half the problem people claim it is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the legislation were to have passed, the government and individual copyright holders could have potentially shut down any website or person associated with copyright infringement

Ok.
What kind of idiot would protest this?



oh.....nevermind

You want to know who the idiots are? It is the people who are afraid of new technology. The movie and music industry have opposed record players, radio, television, cassette tapes, VCRs, DVDs, and now the internet. Given their track record, I would oppose SOPA/PIPA just because they have always been wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

IT IS ANTI-freedom and against the consitution! Impeachments and removals should be had if they pass this anti-freeom bill!

You are not free to steal what belongs to someone else.

Some don't understand the concept of property/intellectual property.

Being a writer, I think I have a better grasp on it than most people. You should take a look at the list of singer/writers/artists who oppose SOPA sometime. Maybe, just maybe, someone is lying to you.

Fractured Atlas Blog : More Arts Groups Sign On to Oppose SOPA/PIPA
Anti-SOPA Movement Unites Trent Reznor, Opera Singers - The Consumerist

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That wouldn't be very prudent or cost effective of the big evil corporation unless they had a legitimate reason to pursue the violator, now would it?

Let us see just how well your logic actually stands up to reality.

Universal Music Issues Questionable Takedown On Megaupload Video That Featured Their Artists [Updated] | Techdirt

Megaupload Sues Universal Over Questionable Video Takedown, As Will.i.am Says He Sent Takedown Too | Techdirt

Universal Music Takes Down 50 Cent's Official YouTube Video | Techdirt

UMG, MegaUpload Case Gets Even Stranger; Will.i.am Says He Didn't Authorize A Takedown | Techdirt

Gee, it seems Universal, which is a pretty big company, thinks it is worth its time to issue take downs of videos they do not own the rights to. Imagine giving them the power to block sites and cut off payment to any site that links to to sites that they do not like.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My content is no different your car. You car belongs to you - my content belongs to me. You have no right to take it without either paying or obtaining my permission. I'm sick of people wanting everything for free, frankly.

I agree entirely. I don't think anyone is suggesting that one doesn't own one's copyrights or that piracy of copyrighted material is either harmless or morally acceptable.

Well, for someone like me - not a 'major corporation'... I have to weigh up the cost of fighting them against the value of the material. But, if I allow it to stand, then they keep on doing it... and other people take it from them, and the list goes on. I've seen an article of mine on 15 fucking sites - not one of which has paid. 15! That's thousands of dollars that I've lost.

Frankly, this is not as simple as you seem to think. Yes, it is about massive corporations... but it's also about self employed writers like me who earn their living from copyrighted material. Think about it before you decide you disagree with it.

Don't get me wrong... I want a very tight law - one that does not give free rein to shut down free speech... but millions of people like me will get caught in the crossfire of this.

Happily, I no longer rely on that financial revenue stream now.... but my content is still mine. You cannot take it from me without paying.

I have been in the same situation. Unfortunately, SOPA will not help either of us because you still need money to file cases in court. Also, it really is aimed at sites that "infringe" content from large companies, not small timers like us.