I'm a massive proponent of protecting intellectual property. People who say all information should be available for everyone for free and companies make profits anyway and we all know profits are evil so companies shouldn't have any control over anything and crap like that irritate me beyond belief. But I think there's a big difference between stealing a movie and setting your family's vacation slideshow on YouTube to a song you purchased on iTunes, and the companies will target groups doing both those things (quite possibly the second thing more because it's easier); in doing that they are already overzealous if you ask me. Stop piracy? Yes please! Shut down YouTube because there's a video of a baby dancing to a Beyoncé song? Not in my lifetime. And I'm only 16...
Stand against Online Censorship
- Thread starter Ernest Worthing
- Start date
I dont think that is what this petition is about at all. Most people agree that copyright infringement and piracy is wrong and shouldnt be done. What people are saying is that this law is going about the wrong way to try and stop it, it wont work and it'll have the potential to be abused in all likelihood.
You might say that's exactly the same thing you said but the way i view it, in other words, is that the law is going about it something like this:
"The streets are a public place. Most people who walk there are not doing anything wrong. But if there is a single pickpocket there committing a crime, the whole street gets shut down and no one can walk there anymore."
This is what im afraid of as well. They have their excuse and illegal downloaders have given them their excuse. Im worried that it might get passed even though it is going too far.
If it gets passed it gets passed but everyone who knows and cares about it has to at least try and hinder it so that perhaps they come up with a more reasonable and fair method of stopping illegal downloading.
Ernest, Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I too can see where the law could be used badly, but it will curb piracy. Maybe something could be added to the law that site will be given a certain period of time to remove offending material. As I said, my demo reel's music got censored because of copyright issues so I took it down and added my own music.
Scott
Scott
I am NOT for this bill as it is. It will be misused. I just think that the laws are coming and that is far more of an inevitability than thinking the rampant piracy will continue as it has. Sure, there will always be ways to get around it, but right now it is so commonplace and destructive that it won't continue.
With YouTube/Google creating all new Channels of content and programming with an investment of over $150 million, you can expect that sooner or later they will want to protect that investment as well. The government will also start seeing it as another form of television... which they regulate withe the FCC. So either the FCC or some other agency will be formed to watchdog the Internet in no time.
Good bye free pornography.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s
This has been going on for some time, and I don't see why anyone would want to censor the internet and basically mess with our internet. I can understand if people were to download illegal stuff on the web, but the fact that youtube could be effected by this for simply having music or video snip-its of movies, is just ridiculous. Or any other site for that matter.
The reason this basically means censorship is that since these sites can be held liable for content posted by their users, sites will have to start monitoring their users' content. And if anything is questionable, they'll pull it first and ask questions later. Smaller sites, start-ups, etc. are the ones who will be hardest hit be cause they'll be easiest to shut down. That means there will be fewer startups.
It also means that things like sharing a news video on Facebook could be enough to get you banned and/or the site shut down (probably wouldn't happen with Facebook, but definitely could with a smaller site). What if you reshare content from YouTube or elsewhere on your blog without realizing it's infringing on someone else's copyright? Right now, you'd get a dmca takedown notice and have a certain amount of time to comply. Under this new law, they'll just shut down your entire site.
How many of us have studied individual scenes posted on YouTube from a film to learn about a certain technique (or shared them here)? Sharing them here would be enough to get this site shut down. And it's not like the current law where IT would get a notice that there was infringing content. No, we'd just type in the URL one morning and find out the site had been shut down. Small sites won't be able to afford to fight and recover from things like this.
And the thing is, all pirates will have to do to get around the provisions in the law is know the IP address of the site they want. That's it. The big problem here is that the people writing the bill have no freaking idea what the hell they're talking about, so it does things they don't understand.
(Sorry if this is littered with typos, I'm typing on my phone and am sick in bed at the moment...)
It also means that things like sharing a news video on Facebook could be enough to get you banned and/or the site shut down (probably wouldn't happen with Facebook, but definitely could with a smaller site). What if you reshare content from YouTube or elsewhere on your blog without realizing it's infringing on someone else's copyright? Right now, you'd get a dmca takedown notice and have a certain amount of time to comply. Under this new law, they'll just shut down your entire site.
How many of us have studied individual scenes posted on YouTube from a film to learn about a certain technique (or shared them here)? Sharing them here would be enough to get this site shut down. And it's not like the current law where IT would get a notice that there was infringing content. No, we'd just type in the URL one morning and find out the site had been shut down. Small sites won't be able to afford to fight and recover from things like this.
And the thing is, all pirates will have to do to get around the provisions in the law is know the IP address of the site they want. That's it. The big problem here is that the people writing the bill have no freaking idea what the hell they're talking about, so it does things they don't understand.
(Sorry if this is littered with typos, I'm typing on my phone and am sick in bed at the moment...)
Last edited:
Here's a simple example on how SOPA == Censorship:
Say I am out wandering around with my camera, and I happen to run into some cops beating some kid. They just happen to be near a Pepsi machine.
Youtube can be forced to pull my video because of the completely incidental background logo - thus censoring the incident.
Here's a more specific example: Because videos of the shooting Oscar Grant contain BART logos, they could have been pulled - squelching public outcry at an unjust shooting.
Cameron has it right as well - SOPA is a technical failure at doing what it purports to do. All a pirate needs is an IP address (not a domain name) to get to a torrent site.
Say I am out wandering around with my camera, and I happen to run into some cops beating some kid. They just happen to be near a Pepsi machine.
Youtube can be forced to pull my video because of the completely incidental background logo - thus censoring the incident.
Here's a more specific example: Because videos of the shooting Oscar Grant contain BART logos, they could have been pulled - squelching public outcry at an unjust shooting.
Cameron has it right as well - SOPA is a technical failure at doing what it purports to do. All a pirate needs is an IP address (not a domain name) to get to a torrent site.
Thanks for sharing the link and putting more awareness out.
When i think about this and some of the other laws that have been passed in this century, so many thoughts come to my mind that i dont even know where to begin typing.
With proxy servers and the like, just as soon as something is stopped, another door will open.
YES I sell my movie online and yes if someone saw fit to put my movie on torrents I would not make a dime off the pirated movie. I understand that, but most people do not want to bother with torrents with all the virus issues. My point is if you give them a decent product, make it available and attractive, they will buy.
Times are a changing and no one can stop it ! Worst thing is the slimewads who peddle kiddie porn are able to slip thru the cracks in this too. GRRRR
YES I sell my movie online and yes if someone saw fit to put my movie on torrents I would not make a dime off the pirated movie. I understand that, but most people do not want to bother with torrents with all the virus issues. My point is if you give them a decent product, make it available and attractive, they will buy.
Times are a changing and no one can stop it ! Worst thing is the slimewads who peddle kiddie porn are able to slip thru the cracks in this too. GRRRR
Some good news on the matter at hand.
Sony, Nintendo and EA have pulled their support from SOPA.
http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/ne...-withdraw-stop-online-piracy-act-support.html
Sony, Nintendo and EA have pulled their support from SOPA.
http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/ne...-withdraw-stop-online-piracy-act-support.html
People need to pay for their music and movies just like the rest of us. Don't steal or download stuff that isn't yours. Individuals who illegally download are helping create an environment that is detrimental to indie filmmakers and musicians alike. If you don't have enough money for it then work and save up! Don't go torrent and rip others hard work.
*As for SOPA... I think it's very unsettling to give the government that much power...*
*As for SOPA... I think it's very unsettling to give the government that much power...*
Last edited:
Completely agree with you on both points.
And SOPA will not only give the govt 2 much power but large companies as well.
We need another way to prevent copyright infringement which does not have so much potential for abuse. The link richy posted on the previous page of this thread provides some of the other viable options.
The problem with many portions of the bill is the wording.
The bill authorizes the government to shut down any website that is accused of posting copyrighted materials without permission. The site would remain shut down until adjudications are completed. That means that, if the bill was passed today, YouTube would be shut down tomorrow until every single accusation of copyright infringement was settled. How many videos on YouTube use music without permission? Millions? And make note of the fact that all it takes is an accusation. If you have a website for your little one-man production company your ex-girlfriend or a disgruntled PA could accuse you of using copyrighted material on your website (even if there isn't) and your website would be automatically shut down and stay down until the FCC (or whoever) hears your case, which could take months or even years.
The bill also mandates that websites must police themselves. For example, every single video submitted to YouTube would have to be reviewed by YouTube for potential copyright violations. That means Google would have to hire people to review each video as it is submitted. How long do you think YouTube would remain a free site; the costs to review every video would be astronomical.
Another example would be you take a picture of your camera to use on eBay; it looks like the manufacturers picture. All it takes is the accusation that the picture is under copyright to shut down eBay until the case is heard. That's right, they shut down eBay, not just pull your ad.
It would also be the perfect way for political or business rivals to strangle each other. Just imagine Apple accusing Microsoft of using copyrighted materials without permission. Under current wording of the bill all Microsoft websites would be shut down until the case is heard. Or Romney accuses Obama and the DNC of using copyrighted materials without permission, so all Obama/DNC websites would have to be shut down until the cases are heard.
And, if you want to get technical - and lawyers make their living on technicalities - it may be possible to shut down a website if you link to copyrighted materials. In IndieTalks "Song of the Day" thread we link to YouTube videos of favorite songs; a lawyer could decide that, even though the song is legally on YouTube, IndieTalk is in copyright violation for having the video available in the thread.
Yes, I'm aware that these are extreme examples. Everyone keeps saying that those types of things would never happen, but the way the law is written the potential for those types of abuses are there and they will affect "the little guy" as he does not the litigation potentials of the big corporations. But the real crux of the matter is that everything is founded upon accusations, not proof. The intention of the law is admirable, but the laws of unintended consequences will jump up to bite you in the rear every single time.
The bill authorizes the government to shut down any website that is accused of posting copyrighted materials without permission. The site would remain shut down until adjudications are completed. That means that, if the bill was passed today, YouTube would be shut down tomorrow until every single accusation of copyright infringement was settled. How many videos on YouTube use music without permission? Millions? And make note of the fact that all it takes is an accusation. If you have a website for your little one-man production company your ex-girlfriend or a disgruntled PA could accuse you of using copyrighted material on your website (even if there isn't) and your website would be automatically shut down and stay down until the FCC (or whoever) hears your case, which could take months or even years.
The bill also mandates that websites must police themselves. For example, every single video submitted to YouTube would have to be reviewed by YouTube for potential copyright violations. That means Google would have to hire people to review each video as it is submitted. How long do you think YouTube would remain a free site; the costs to review every video would be astronomical.
Another example would be you take a picture of your camera to use on eBay; it looks like the manufacturers picture. All it takes is the accusation that the picture is under copyright to shut down eBay until the case is heard. That's right, they shut down eBay, not just pull your ad.
It would also be the perfect way for political or business rivals to strangle each other. Just imagine Apple accusing Microsoft of using copyrighted materials without permission. Under current wording of the bill all Microsoft websites would be shut down until the case is heard. Or Romney accuses Obama and the DNC of using copyrighted materials without permission, so all Obama/DNC websites would have to be shut down until the cases are heard.
And, if you want to get technical - and lawyers make their living on technicalities - it may be possible to shut down a website if you link to copyrighted materials. In IndieTalks "Song of the Day" thread we link to YouTube videos of favorite songs; a lawyer could decide that, even though the song is legally on YouTube, IndieTalk is in copyright violation for having the video available in the thread.
Yes, I'm aware that these are extreme examples. Everyone keeps saying that those types of things would never happen, but the way the law is written the potential for those types of abuses are there and they will affect "the little guy" as he does not the litigation potentials of the big corporations. But the real crux of the matter is that everything is founded upon accusations, not proof. The intention of the law is admirable, but the laws of unintended consequences will jump up to bite you in the rear every single time.
Last edited:
Im only quoting the summation but thank you so much for your post explaining SOPA and its potential effects.
I really, honestly and truly appreciate it.
Right there with you, Alcove. In fact, these sort of abuses are the only sort of things that will come about because of this law. The law talks a lot about blocking DNS for offending sites...however, a website is still accessable when the DNS is down. You just need to know the IP address. People who are *really* into that sort of thing don't even bother with a DNS-active search site. Not to mention the basic fact that the world wide web is a tiny fraction of what is meant by "the internet" and the only side that lawmakers seem to see.
These proposed laws are too little (effectiveness) too much (power in the wrong hands) and way, way too late. Yes, copyright infringement needs to stop. However, the power to say what is or isn't "infringement" should be in the hands of the creator. Artist A might be content to share some or all of his music freely. That's up to him. I do believe, in the interest of a "level playing field" there should be freely (or cheaply) accessable tools to manage protection, but that should come from the tech sector, not the government. People who know what the hell they're talking about.
Oh, and to further illustrate Alcove's point: my girlfriend makes her living doing online psychic readings (long story there). When she started, most of her business was through eBay. When she started, all her listings were flagged for violations. The listings were taken down, when it was (eventually) determined that she was not, in fact, violating any of the rules she was getting flagged for, her listing fees were refunded. Not addon fees of course (second line, international visibility, etc). But the fact is, her listings were immediately pulled, just because someone clicked a button that said "report". eBay is free to run their private corner of the world any way they want to...but do we REALLY want the entire web to be LEGALLY MANDATED to run that way?
Gah, this whole thing just irritates me! </rant>
These proposed laws are too little (effectiveness) too much (power in the wrong hands) and way, way too late. Yes, copyright infringement needs to stop. However, the power to say what is or isn't "infringement" should be in the hands of the creator. Artist A might be content to share some or all of his music freely. That's up to him. I do believe, in the interest of a "level playing field" there should be freely (or cheaply) accessable tools to manage protection, but that should come from the tech sector, not the government. People who know what the hell they're talking about.
Oh, and to further illustrate Alcove's point: my girlfriend makes her living doing online psychic readings (long story there). When she started, most of her business was through eBay. When she started, all her listings were flagged for violations. The listings were taken down, when it was (eventually) determined that she was not, in fact, violating any of the rules she was getting flagged for, her listing fees were refunded. Not addon fees of course (second line, international visibility, etc). But the fact is, her listings were immediately pulled, just because someone clicked a button that said "report". eBay is free to run their private corner of the world any way they want to...but do we REALLY want the entire web to be LEGALLY MANDATED to run that way?
Gah, this whole thing just irritates me! </rant>