Protect IP & SOPA: The Internet Blacklist

Zero

ModRetro Legend
Administrator
I'm certain most of you have already known about this for awhile, but I realized no one had made a thread. For those of you that aren't aware, Protect IP and SOPA are a pair of bills currently up for hearing in the US Congress. These bills will allow the US Government to seize and block sites that they deem has copyrighted content on it, even if its something as simple as a link or image posted by one of the site's users rather than the site itself. The sets a dangerous precedent and would set up a system similar to China and Iran's internet block. I urge everyone in the US who hasn't yet done so to please contact your representatives and tell them to oppose these bills. Even if you aren't in the US, keep in mind these bills will affect the entire world, so please spread the word as much as you can.

More Information:

http://americancensorship.org/
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/pipa_house/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

 
The Atlantic Wire said:
Juiced by nearly $200-million in lobbyist funds, the Hollywood crowd did their best to vilify Google and internet companies

Follow the money. I'd also like to point out a rather astute comment on YouTube.

mayssm said:
Funny...Americans are in one of their more dire times financially, but Congress is busy dreaming up ways to protect corporate interests as usual. Let's just skip to the end and make it a law that any person accused of interfering with a corporation's profits is committing a felony with a minimum sentence of 20 years in prison. I emailed my congressman today about this pos bill. We are giving more and more policing powers to corporations instead of law enforcement.

I'm not American and this bill wouldn't DIRECTLY affect me, but a)it would affect a lot of sites I use and b)it sets a precedent that others will follow, stupid or not. This is actually pretty scary. When a country that is known for its freedom above all else (how much of that is actually true I'm not sure) supports censorship, flax's going down.
 
America, freedom, lol.

Vote with your wallets, if this passes stop paying for your internet.
 
My government teacher would be so proud of me sending a letter to my elected government official. I'd probably do it more often if it was easy as entering my name, email, and address! :awesome:

SS
 
Letter thing sent. Not only that, but I actually took the time to log into facebook for the first time in forever to post it there too.
 
Letter sent. I also sent it to my dad via email so he can blast it out to his 100 contacts.
 
Sure, we've all pirated here and there. People have gotten caught and punished. But really? Heck, if we said "ModRetro" in one of our YouTube videos, they could take it down for copyright to Palmer & the rest of the staff. *Can'tSayThisOnTV* no, I sent the letter.
 
It's possible, depending on how far they take this. And I think Palmer or whoever would need to claim copyrights first, but yeah, it could happen.
 
This would be ridiculous if they followed through. Luckily I never talk in my videos because I feel weird doing it.
But for reals, doing this is as stupid as the 18th amendment. It would mess up the internet so bad, and so many people would protest. Doing it would be political suicide from voters. Think of the slam campaigns, and the companies they could *Can'tSayThisOnTV* over, who backs them up $$ wise. So we have no worry, nothing will happen.
 
Yeah, individuals can also be faced with up to 5 years jail time for a copyright violation, whether it be you using the lyrics of a song or it simply being in the background of your video. Pretty much almost everything on youtube would be in violation, and unless youtube preemptively screens their videos and censors us, they could get their site blocked nationwide as well. Same goes for Facebook, Twitter, forums, etc. I guess they don't think Fair Use applies to the internet.

Its gone beyond just trying to stop piracy, and just makes it way too easy for them to abuse this. It does nothing to stop torrents and other P2P protocols anyway, and even HTTP downloads could be fixed multiple ways.
 
Even if this bill passes, it would be as unenforceable as current copyright and IP laws are now. Yes, people do get caught doing stupid things, but that's usually because either a corporation keeps a close eye on new material (new Disney movies for example,) or someone gets ratted out. Even then, it's mostly the people who distribute the material, not download it (Napster was a peer-to-peer client where users automatically shared their content while they were online.) The only case I can think of in recent memory where individuals were targets for simply downloading material was a local case here where college students were charged with downloading music illegally using the college's internet connection; each student was fined $3k each.

As far as the government blocking sites and such for violation of copyright, to a point this makes sense, from a business point of view. Whether or not you agree with it, like that one politician said: corporations are people too, in the sense that the people who run them make their money from their corporation that they run. We are in a position to not give a flax because we make so much less than they do, but take it from someone who knows - they care very much about the money they make.

The problem with current copyright laws is that they are hard to enforce on an individual basis; case-by-case complaints are the only way to deal with IP problems on sites such as Youtube, outside of their auto-detection devices they employ. The only way around this is to automatically block sites that have the content on their servers.

Don't confuse this with the practices of other countries such as China or North Korea - they don't block content due to copyright problems, they block content they don't feel their population needs to see, which is different from protection against merchandise theft. (Downloading and copying music is illegal.) People commonly commit a logical fallacy in thinking that one reasonable action leads to another, unreasonable action. Will a bill pass to protect against theft? Yes. Will congress pass a bill actually does amount to censorship just because they passed a bill protecting against theft? No, of *Can'tSayThisOnTV*ing course not you god Dang nitwit, because we're not North Korea or China or any other communist/socialist country (against what most misguided Republicans would tell you, that's not what our country will ever turn into, and no I'm not a *Can'tSayThisOnTV*ing Democrat either, so save your anti-Democratic bullflax, thanks, god Dang it.)

Do I think corporations would make more money if all (or any) piracy was prevented? No. Do I think corporations would make more money if ever increasing punishments were sought against regular Joes for violations of IP rights? Outside of the litigation proceeds, no. Computers have almost always been able to communicate with each other in some form or another, they don't need the Internet to do so (though it does make it SO MUCH FASTER.) I remember warez BBS from the 80's and 90's (who doesn't) where you could download anything you want. Of course, try downloading the latest Call of Duty on 56k.

To tie that in, the distribution of music illegally predates the Internet, and was just as - if not more so - prolific than any MP3 distribution sites now. It's been possible since the invention of the tape recorder, and even better if it had a CD player that let you record to tape. Buddy of yours buy a new CD that you want? Borrow it and copy it. Library has the CD you want? Borrow it and copy it. CD burners have been around for forever; borrow a CD, copy it to hard drive, make infinite copies. Completely undetectable by law until someone turns you in for it.

These laws are realistically unenforceable, ineffective, and are enforced by draconian measures. Unfortunately, because people in power also have lots of money and love making even more money, these bills will probably keep cropping up here and there. Doesn't mean we need to freak out about it, but it might mean that on down the road you'll have to figure other, safer ways to steal your music. Just don't *Can'tSayThisOnTV*ing whine about your theft not being easy.

I haven't slept in two days, sorry if this was rambly.
 
Robm, while its true catching individuals will likely be around the same or maybe a bit more than how it is now, with likely just a few people being made an example of, it leaves a lot of room for potential abuse in the future as things get worse. In addition, currently it is almost always a civil matter if you get caught, with you having to pay reimbursement to the company. You usually only face criminal charges if you are caught selling or heavily distributing the material. However, under the new system, individuals will face up to 5 years in prison, even if its for personal use. This, along with stricter interpretations (like the example I said before, simply using a song or lyrics in a youtube video) means that even if people get caught at around the same rates at first, the punishment will be much worse and it can pretty much destroy Fair Use on the internet.

And in terms of blocking sites, the problem is the wording allows them to take down a site for a simple user posted link or image, without even issuing prior warning. Most of our avatars would be a copyright violation, as well as a large amount of links, images, and videos posted. Forums, blogs, and social media sites like Facebook would HAVE to censor, filter, and pre-approve everything, else have the entire site taken down because of the action of one user. And don't you dare think the government won't use this purposely vague bill to take down sites like Wikileaks for "copyright violation" of US documents. They already put pressure on financial institutions in the past to successfully cut off Wikileaks' funding, and if they had this law at their disposal back then you KNOW they'd have used it without hesitation, and that would only open the interpretation even more. Heck, they've already seized smaller domains without this law in the past on multiple occasions.

This bill won't stop people from using torrents, IRC, FTP, or even HTTP downloads. It won't save movie and recording companies nearly as much as they think, and its effects on piracy will be minimal. Its effects however, on free speech, expression, creativity, and fair use on the internet will be devastating. Its understandable these companies don't want to lose money, but this won't help them and only breaks the internet from both a social and technical standpoint, as well as opens the door for the US and other world governments to do even worse.
 
Also remember that individual website hosts would no longer be protected under the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA that absolve them of user-created content. So if someone starts at Tumblr site hosting stolen art and copies of TV shows, Tumblr would be held as accountable for the IP infringement as the anonymous user who posted it.

This goes for any site of any size, be it a video host run by a multi-billion dollar search giant, a freely editable encyclopedia run by a nonprofit, or a web forum hosted by a private individual.

If The Internet is a city, it has a few houses with termite problems. So you send in an exterminator to take care of the infestations, right? NOPE nuke the entire place from orbit.

While we're at it let's hold Toyota and AT&T responsible for when people run over pedestrians with their SUVs because they're too busy playing with their phones to watch the road.
 
@Zero - It's the open-ended nature of the bill that will likely cause it to fail to pass; that, and the cost of the program. A bigger issue with these bills is that I would bet that they are written by people who have no idea how the Internet actually works, with an unrealistic view on how piracy itself works. However, the enforcement aspect of the law - providing jail time/fines for thieves - I have a hard time arguing against. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. The "personal use" argument doesn't carry any weight with me; if someone steals something from my store, they're not going to sell or give it to someone else, they're going to put it on their car. While hurting my profits, gross margins, and inventory accuracy in the process.

@bic - The problem with the Internet is that it doesn't conform to similar situations in real life in regards to merchandise theft. Sometimes the wording makes it sound that, by extension, I as a business owner would be held accountable for a customer - "user," if you will - coming into my store and stealing a ratchet because I operate a store that has it available?

The answer, obviously, is no. However, if I was operating a store under the pretense of letting people steal the merchandise, but the merchandise actually had a value attached to it (via pricing and actual cost to the manufacturer,) then I would be held liable for A) not making my sales, and B) facilitating the loss of revenue for my company and our vendors for not charging for the merchandise. This activity WOULD be a crime.

Extending that, a website operator/owner who knowingly allowed stolen merchandise on their website to be distributed carries the same amount of responsibility. A website owner/operator cannot, in most cases, realistically say that they are unaware of any kind of illegal activity on their servers. Let's use Megaupload as an example. Who here can seriously say they ONLY use that site to download completely legitimate material? I would call bullflax on anyone who claims that. Likewise, any "employee" of Megaupload who claims they're unaware of illegal material on their website is also bullflax.

HOWEVER - and this is where I have a problem with the bill - the owners DO have provisions for shutting down and blocking content that is REPORTED as illegal, and we're back to square one. These laws are realistically only enforceable on a case-by-case basis, because trying to blanket an entire website for illegal material - particularly such a large operation such as Megaupload - isn't the answer, as they DO actually have content that is legitimate. (My own concern that they have these provisions just to say they have them to avoid legal issues is beside the point.)

To use an example, I might know that I have a theft problem in my store, and I realistically cannot stop all of it. But, I can (and have) installed locking peg hooks, raised my employee's awareness of theft, and taken other measures to ensure that we have a greater opportunity to reduce theft. This action would remove me from suspicion of theft because I am taking an obviously proactive stance against it, so it would make no sense to charge me with a crime I am actively working to prevent.

It's pointless to worry about whether or not the bill would leave room for abuse; while yes, it could happen and I'm sure it's happened with other issues, this kind of bill will always have a hard time passing. And even if it does pass, the community is large enough now to be able to organize an appeal.
 
Its not the jail time for piracy that bothers me so much as what was covered under fair use before can get you the same exact punishment. If companies want to say piracy affects sales (some people would argue if it does, or to what extent), that's completely understandable. Someone singing a song online jokingly, doing a parody video, or posting an image absolutely does not affect sales though.
 
Zero said:
Someone singing a song online jokingly, doing a parody video, or posting an image absolutely does not affect sales though.

To me, it seems like most of those would increase sales.
 
Back
Top