Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA

[Dr Grump]

Has anybody looked into the nuts and bolts of this legislation? On the outside, I can't see what the problem is, unless there is a clause in there that will lead to the slippery slope of full-on censorship.

But stopping people pirating or stealing intellectual property? Don't have a problem with it....

 

[ladyliberal]

Has anybody looked into the nuts and bolts of this legislation? On the outside, I can't see what the problem is, unless there is a clause in there that will lead to the slippery slope of full-on censorship.

But stopping people pirating or stealing intellectual property? Don't have a problem with it....

I don't think anyone has a problem with protecting intellectual property in concept. And certainly no one with authority has argued that the legislation should be used to censor political speech (wouldn't it be amazing if they did?) However, as Wikipedian Wales noted (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/17/tech/web/wikipedia-sopa-blackout-qa/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn) the DNS blocking structure is functionally quite similar to the one used by China in its political censorship. While this will not necessarily lead to political censorship in the US, the current legislation or something like it would be a necessary step for efficient political censorship of the internet.

 

[hortysir]

Several people have indicated in this thread that they support the legislation because it would make it harder to steal things. Do these people think that Wikipedia is substantially stealing things or facilitating the stealing of things? Do you think that there might be reasons other than love of stealing things to oppose the legislation?

Enlighten us.

Can you articulate why you disagree with the measure?

My feelings about the legislation are largely the same as the last time I commented on it on this board (http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...road-new-powers-to-police-the-internet-2.html). In my original post I addressed Wikipedia's forthcoming action specifically rather than rehashing how I felt about the legislation in general. I'd still love to hear your thoughts on either topic.

From your post on that thread:

The effect will be that large corporations will be able to financially ruin broad classes of websites virtually at will, without directly involving the government or the courts.

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?

All that is necessary is evidence (not beyond reasonable doubt, but evidence that "suggest") that a website is used primarily (though by no means exclusively) to facilitate copyright violation

And you think that your hero, Eric Holder, or any other AG would pursue a frivolous suit for no reason or without plausible evidence?

The House version makes streaming copyrighted material a felony

Good. It should be.
You do realize that FF has a video-snagger that allows you to download streaming content to your desktop, right?
Why should the copyright owner surrender profits from their material?
Because you don't want to get off your ass and spend $8 to go to a movie?


I view the internet as a huge news stand.
Difference being is that all the porn and violence and nasty shit is right on the bottom shelf for anyone and everyone to reach, free of charge, regardless of copyright ownership.

If this bill can bill can move some of that garbage out of easy reach and into the back room, where you have to pay for it, count me in.

 

[California Girl]

Several people have indicated in this thread that they support the legislation because it would make it harder to steal things. Do these people think that Wikipedia is substantially stealing things or facilitating the stealing of things? Do you think that there might be reasons other than love of stealing things to oppose the legislation?

I think that if you've had copyrighted material stolen from you, you might have an idea of why.

I said jack shit about wiki, frankly, I could care less if they shut down entirely.

And note the periodic pleadings on wiki for funding to keep them going?

I've got ignoring their begging bowl down to a fine art.

 

[California Girl]

Several people have indicated in this thread that they support the legislation because it would make it harder to steal things. Do these people think that Wikipedia is substantially stealing things or facilitating the stealing of things? Do you think that there might be reasons other than love of stealing things to oppose the legislation?

I think that if you've had copyrighted material stolen from you, you might have an idea of why.

I said jack shit about wiki, frankly, I could care less if they shut down entirely.

If you've had material stolen from you then I'm sorry to hear that. Neither of the questions I asked are "why" questions, so I'm not sure what you are saying in reply to my post.

I don't need your sympathy. But it costs me money to force people to remove my content.

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.

 

[ladyliberal]

From your post on that thread:


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?

All that is necessary is evidence (not beyond reasonable doubt, but evidence that "suggest") that a website is used primarily (though by no means exclusively) to facilitate copyright violation

And you think that your hero, Eric Holder, or any other AG would pursue a frivolous suit for no reason or without plausible evidence?

The House version makes streaming copyrighted material a felony

Good. It should be.
You do realize that FF has a video-snagger that allows you to download streaming content to your desktop, right?
Why should the copyright owner surrender profits from their material?
Because you don't want to get off your ass and spend $8 to go to a movie?


I view the internet as a huge news stand.
Difference being is that all the porn and violence and nasty shit is right on the bottom shelf for anyone and everyone to reach, free of charge, regardless of copyright ownership.

If this bill can bill can move some of that garbage out of easy reach and into the back room, where you have to pay for it, count me in.

Regarding your first point, I couldn't disagree with you more. Corporations already use laws designed to protect to protect intellectual property to stifle criticism or prevent fair use. See, for example, Wal-mart's attempt to use trademark law to prevent criticism of their stores (Court Rejects Wal-Mart's Bid to Silence Criticism Through Trademark Law | Citizen Media Law Project).

And Attorney Generals (I feel that you mischaracterize my view on Holder in particular) are not to be entrusted with too much power either. While we now tiptoe further into the realm of speculation, some people have suggested that an AG could use bogus or selective intellectual property complaints to block legitimate speech. Certainly, AGs have committed numerous violations of civil liberties in the past.

Regarding the felony charges relating to video streaming, my point in that thread wasn't that these were necessarily a bad thing. My point was to rebut someone's claim that the proposed legislation was entirely concerned with blocking websites and couldn't send anyone to jail (the full paragraph you quoted was "The suggestion that the bills could send people to jail is quite plausible. The House version makes streaming copyrighted material a felony.").

Regarding FF and video-snagging, no, I don't know what either of those are.

 

[The T]

I think that if you've had copyrighted material stolen from you, you might have an idea of why.

I said jack shit about wiki, frankly, I could care less if they shut down entirely.

And note the periodic pleadings on wiki for funding to keep them going?

I've got ignoring their begging bowl down to a fine art.

Good point. It should send a red flag to those that use it as an exclusive source a message...

 

[ladyliberal]

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.

 

[California Girl]

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 ******* 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.

 

[The T]

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 ******* 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.

Question? Was your article given it's due acknowledgement as to author?

 

[hortysir]

Regarding your first point, I couldn't disagree with you more. Corporations already use laws designed to protect to protect intellectual property to stifle criticism or prevent fair use. See, for example, Wal-mart's attempt to use trademark law to prevent criticism of their stores (Court Rejects Wal-Mart's Bid to Silence Criticism Through Trademark Law | Citizen Media Law Project).

And Attorney Generals (I feel that you mischaracterize my view on Holder in particular) are not to be entrusted with too much power either. While we now tiptoe further into the realm of speculation, some people have suggested that an AG could use bogus or selective intellectual property complaints to block legitimate speech. Certainly, AGs have committed numerous violations of civil liberties in the past.

Regarding the felony charges relating to video streaming, my point in that thread wasn't that these were necessarily a bad thing. My point was to rebut someone's claim that the proposed legislation was entirely concerned with blocking websites and couldn't send anyone to jail (the full paragraph you quoted was "The suggestion that the bills could send people to jail is quite plausible. The House version makes streaming copyrighted material a felony.").

Regarding FF and video-snagging, no, I don't know what either of those are.

Trademark laws are quite different than Copyright laws.
I can say a company's name. I can't, however, steal that company's product.
I will say, after reading the link, that Wal-Mart felt they had a chance at winning and their opponent was a pretty good heavy-hitter. So it was beneficial for WallyWorld to try.
(glad they lost)

I was just agreeing that hefty fines or even jail time should be in order for repeat offenders.

FF was just short for FireFox's web browser.
They have an add-on that allows snagging of streaming videos.


And, yes, AGs are known to over-reach their authority.
The answer isn't to just do nothing, though.

Stealing is stealing and should be enforced as such.

 

[hortysir]

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.

This clarified your stance.
Thanks

 

[hortysir]

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



got it

where did you steal your AV from?

I was hoping your dumb ass would try to get me with that bullshit.

I get all of my PS tubes from groups of artists WITH their permission.




You?

then STFU

 

[toomuchtime_]

Several people have indicated in this thread that they support the legislation because it would make it harder to steal things. Do these people think that Wikipedia is substantially stealing things or facilitating the stealing of things? Do you think that there might be reasons other than love of stealing things to oppose the legislation?

Wikipedia seems to think they may be facilitating theft of intellectual property and they probably are. The proposed laws hold sites responsible for hosting pirated material, and sites like Wikipedia and facebook, which rely on uploads of content by users. These sites argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for pirated content since they didn't deliberately put it there, but proponents of the bills say these sites should be required to monitor uploads to prevent pirated material from being displayed on their sites; their opposition to the bills is not about free speech but the cost of preventing pirated material from being displayed on their sites.

 

[ladyliberal]

Regarding your first point, I couldn't disagree with you more. Corporations already use laws designed to protect to protect intellectual property to stifle criticism or prevent fair use. See, for example, Wal-mart's attempt to use trademark law to prevent criticism of their stores (Court Rejects Wal-Mart's Bid to Silence Criticism Through Trademark Law | Citizen Media Law Project).

And Attorney Generals (I feel that you mischaracterize my view on Holder in particular) are not to be entrusted with too much power either. While we now tiptoe further into the realm of speculation, some people have suggested that an AG could use bogus or selective intellectual property complaints to block legitimate speech. Certainly, AGs have committed numerous violations of civil liberties in the past.

Regarding the felony charges relating to video streaming, my point in that thread wasn't that these were necessarily a bad thing. My point was to rebut someone's claim that the proposed legislation was entirely concerned with blocking websites and couldn't send anyone to jail (the full paragraph you quoted was "The suggestion that the bills could send people to jail is quite plausible. The House version makes streaming copyrighted material a felony.").

Regarding FF and video-snagging, no, I don't know what either of those are.

Trademark laws are quite different than Copyright laws.
I can say a company's name. I can't, however, steal that company's product.
I will say, after reading the link, that Wal-Mart felt they had a chance at winning and their opponent was a pretty good heavy-hitter. So it was beneficial for WallyWorld to try.
(glad they lost)

I was just agreeing that hefty fines or even jail time should be in order for repeat offenders.

FF was just short for FireFox's web browser.
They have an add-on that allows snagging of streaming videos.


And, yes, AGs are known to over-reach their authority.
The answer isn't to just do nothing, though.

Stealing is stealing and should be enforced as such.

I think we have found quite a bit of common ground. Certainly I agree that people who steal intellectual property should be subject to criminal penalties (though, regardless of whether pending legislation passes it would be impractical to process everyone who has ever viewed or listened to pirated material).

And I'm not necessarily advocating for the status quo. I'm sure there is something that can be done to better protect copyrighted material. I just don't like some of the provisions in pending legislation.

 

[percysunshine]

Occupy Wikipedias' Site!

Hey, someone had to say it....

 

[hortysir]

where did you steal your AV from?

I was hoping your dumb ass would try to get me with that bullshit.

I get all of my PS tubes from groups of artists WITH their permission.




You?

then STFU

Prove it.

File a grievance with the artist and await their reply, Mr Transformer.

 

[hortysir]

I think we have found quite a bit of common ground. Certainly I agree that people who steal intellectual property should be subject to criminal penalties (though, regardless of whether pending legislation passes it would be impractical to process everyone who has ever viewed or listened to pirated material).

And I'm not necessarily advocating for the status quo. I'm sure there is something that can be done to better protect copyrighted material. I just don't like some of the provisions in pending legislation.

Can you be more specific?

 

[occupied]

Ever wonder why we ended up with all this corporate welfare? It's because every time a question like this comes up corporate interests always outweigh any other consideration.

 

[The T]

I was hoping your dumb ass would try to get me with that bullshit.

I get all of my PS tubes from groups of artists WITH their permission.




You?

then STFU

Prove it.

File a grievance with the artist and await their reply, Mr Transformer.

Maybe he will be subpeonaed to testify?