FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)





hw3patch
SOPA is a controverial House bill that if passed, would give the Attorney General power to take down any website he deems infringing pretty much on a whim. In addition, search engines would be required to delete listings to such websites, Paypal and other payment facilitators (and advertisers, also) would not be allowed to do business with such websites, and ISP's would be required to block access to such websites. In addition to that, streaming copyrighted media would be a felony with up to 5 years in jail. It would make website owners guilty until proven innocent, by inflicting substantial harm on their website without even notifying them about it until it's too late.

But surely, that wouldn't happen to any legal websites, right? Wrong. If this bill is passed, it would be like Operation in our Sites, which is the DHS/ICE arbitrarily changing the DNS entries to sites that might be "infringing," without any due process or trial before taking the domains. This article offers a logical explanation why Operation in our Sites is unconstitutional, and I believe it can be applied to SOPA also.

If SOPA makes it to the White House, I'm sure that Obama will sign it, thanks to the corporations that aren't afraid to bribe, excuse me, "donate" to politicians in exchange for their votes, and it will be a disaster. The passing of this bill would be the first step on the painful road that ends at an Orwellian, Chinese censorship framework in America. 2084, anyone?

SOPA on Wikipedia: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/SOPA
SOPA on CNET News: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57329001-281/how-sopa-would-affect-you-faq/
SOPA on EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/sopa-hollywood-finally-gets-chance-break-internet
deanhills
Great thread hw3patch. I voted against this last week. I feel very strongly about this and hope that everyone else will vote against it too. My main worry is Government interference in the freedom of movement on the Internet. Once they're in they will be in. They may then get Websites to register and start to charge licensing fees to cover their costs of implementing the law, and that of course will revert back to us. We may not be able to register any accounts under a pseudonym any longer. We may have a user name that is different, but we will be fully monitored. The latter is not stated in the Bill, but for me they would be logical consequences in order to implement the law. Proxy accounts may also be prohibited.

And yes, this stands a great chance of happening as there are huge corporations backing the Bill. And Obama and all of the other politicians who are prostituting themselves for financial backing from those corporations during election campaigns no doubt will be quoting every word from the Bill that may prove their case for "in the interest of safety and security of the public". Evil or Very Mad

This is REALLY bad. So hope everyone will fight against it.

Here is a link to a Website that tells people what they can do to fight the Bill. Also an option for people outside the US to vote against the Bill:
http://americancensorship.org/
SpitsBeaT
This video explains it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc

SOPA is absolute bullshit, nobody owns the Internet!
jmi256
SpitsBeaT wrote:
This video explains it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc

SOPA is absolute bullshit, nobody owns the Internet!


I agree. While I do believe in property rights and intellectual property, this bill is absolute BS. It is a reckless and shortsighted power grab that threatens free speech, and copyright holders already have plenty of avenues to fight piracy in the US. But this is overkill, and it not surprising.

How can we fight against it, though? Obama will most likely sign this into law, and he has shown in the Obamacare scheme debates that he is not willing to listen to what taxpayers and the public want. So how can we fight against this? I did see an article recently about some “hackers” trying to create an alternate internet through use of satellites, but I don’t think this would be a very viable option. Sadly when we are faced with tyranny, however small or innocuous as it may seem at first, we are all deemed and forced to behave like criminals just for exercising our freedoms. I am getting more and more fed up.
metalfreek
SOPA still has support from major companies but godaddy just withdrew its support for SOPA and there are more companies that should remove their support for SOPA. I am not from US but looking at what it is trying to do, it makes me angry. Guys from US raise you voices.

And Reddit is protesting SOPA but disabling its services for 12 hours I think on January 18.
ocalhoun
Also very much against it... besides the loss of freedom and possible corruption issues it represents, it would be a serious blow to the brony community. (Which thrives on copyright infringement.) Heck, if the law passes, I could be forced to take down my site or face jail time.

*considers moving site to a non-US server*
...
*considers moving self to a non-US country*
SonLight
ocalhoun wrote:
Also very much against it... besides the loss of freedom and possible corruption issues it represents, it would be a serious blow to the brony community. (Which thrives on copyright infringement.) Heck, if the law passes, I could be forced to take down my site or face jail time.

*considers moving site to a non-US server*
...
*considers moving self to a non-US country*


LOL -- The main argument in favor of the bill is that non-US sites will not respond to a DMCA takedown notice, and therefore there is no effective recourse against them under present law. If this law were more balanced, it should EXCLUDE both US sites and sites in countries where the DMCA provisions are generally honored and where courts will enforce penalties upon showing sufficient evidence.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Also very much against it... besides the loss of freedom and possible corruption issues it represents, it would be a serious blow to the brony community. (Which thrives on copyright infringement.) Heck, if the law passes, I could be forced to take down my site or face jail time.

*considers moving site to a non-US server*
...
*considers moving self to a non-US country*
Hell has no fury like a Brony scorned. Laughing

But yes, if I were a US citizen and this Bill gets passed I'd consider the same too.
Afaceinthematrix
This may not be the best solution however it is important that something be done about online piracy because it is getting way out of hand. The fact of the matter is that there isn't a thing that you cannot get for free these days and while most people would consider it wrong to go to the store and steal merchandise, many people do not see it as wrong to steal thousands of dollars in software, music, movies, etc.
menino
I partially agree with Afaceinthematrix, that Online Piracy is rampant on the internet and illegal, but I'm still against this SOPA bill, especially after watching SpitsBeaT's youtube link. (Thanks SpitsbeaT)

Its scary that even linking to illegal sites from outside the US can have consequences, where a 23 year old British national faced extradition and 5 year jail time, apart from a huge amount lawsuit in tow, apart from other poor people in the US as well.

I do believe that the internet does need to be policed, for illegal activities, but to me, the least important illegal activity is online piracy.
Sure, some artists lose out on millions from online piracy, but things like child pornography, online stalking, online identity theft, cracking, snooping, etc.. are much more harmful to people and should be given more attention.
catscratches
Nevermind the horrible unintended(?) side-effects; the simple fact remains: this won't help against piracy, at all. I sure know I could easily get around it myself, as can any other pirate. It sure wouldn't stop me from pirating if it passed here.
ocalhoun
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
many people do not see it as wrong to steal thousands of dollars in software, music, movies, etc.

If I could steal things from store shelves ... without actually removing anything ... and with very little chance of being prosecuted... I would.

Also, I have a hard time feeling sorry for the millionaires who only have 35 million rather than 40 million because of piracy.
deanhills
Check this video about SOPA. How the media conglomerates that seemingly have been so WRONGED actually set up people to download copyrighted materials. Total hypocrites! This Video is an EYE-OPENER!

Afaceinthematrix
ocalhoun wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
many people do not see it as wrong to steal thousands of dollars in software, music, movies, etc.

If I could steal things from store shelves ... without actually removing anything ... and with very little chance of being prosecuted... I would.

Also, I have a hard time feeling sorry for the millionaires who only have 35 million rather than 40 million because of piracy.


Whether or not you feel sorry or not is quite irrelevant. That does not change the fact that it is morally wrong. The fact of the matter is that millions of people steal billions of dollars daily and do not even think twice about it yet those same people might feel bad about taking a pencil worth hardly anything off the shelf of a store and sticking it in their pocket.

This does not affect just millionaires. If you download a CD, for instance (although it could be software, movies, etc.), then you are taking food out of the mouths of not only the artist (and not everybody is a multi-platinum selling artist.... many struggle as it is), but also the producers, record labels that fund the artist, the stores that sell albums, distribution centers, etc. You are taking money out of the pockets of many people who need it. While it definitely is not required that you purchase media, it should definitely be required that you purchase it if you want to use it! If you want to listen to music - buy it (or at least listen to stuff that artists give out for free or listen to the radio)!

Software would actually be a better example because many software designers go to school for a long time and pay a lot of money for that education so that they could develop software and then people go and just steal it away... Not every software company is a large as Microsoft and piracy really hurts them. How many thousands of man hours go into developing a complicating piece of software? It would suck to have people using that product but not paying for it... While they may enjoy their work, working for free does not pay the bills.
Bondings
@Afaceinthematrix, copyright infringement is indeed a big issue. However censorship and circumventing due process (judge, both parties being able to defend themselves, ...) should never be used. The ends do not justify the means. Especially if the means are curbing our freedoms this way. The internet has achieved huge liberties for people all over the world and this kind of laws would make it similar to the internet in China.

Secondly, the US is considering .com (and other) domains as US domains, which while historically the case, they are used (and should be) global domains and I do not think that the US should have the right to shut down these domains if they are owned by foreigners (which is already happening even without any contact/trial from the domain owners).

By the way, SOPA was just shelved - but there is still similar legislation like PIPA that has received less attention.
ocalhoun
Afaceinthematrix wrote:


Software would actually be a better example because many software designers go to school for a long time and pay a lot of money for that education so that they could develop software and then people go and just steal it away... Not every software company is a large as Microsoft and piracy really hurts them. How many thousands of man hours go into developing a complicating piece of software? It would suck to have people using that product but not paying for it... While they may enjoy their work, working for free does not pay the bills.

And when you use open source software rather than a paid version, you're taking money away from them in the exact same way.

Is that still wrong then?
Afaceinthematrix
ocalhoun wrote:

And when you use open source software rather than a paid version, you're taking money away from them in the exact same way.

Is that still wrong then?


No. Those are provided by the creators for free and so you're not stealing. Like I said before, if you want to use a product you need to pay for it or else you're stealing! A product is something being sold. If I write a piece of software and I want to sell it for $500 then you need to pay me $500 for it or else not use it! If you use it and don't pay for it, then it's no different from stealing $500 from the bank or a $500 car or a $500 computer from the store or whatever and you should, therefore, go to jail just like you would if you had gotten. I don't see what is so difficult to understand that if you take something from someone else that isn't yours then you are stealing and that is both immoral and illegal. Stealing my software program that I try to sell would be absolutely no different from me walking up to your backyard when you aren't home and stealing your horse. That would hurt you and so why would you do that to someone else?

@Bondings: I know there were issues with SOPA which is why I started my first post off with, "This may not be the best solution however it is important that something be done about online piracy because it is getting way out of hand."
catscratches
No, it would be like me making a copy of Ocalhon's horse. Ocalhon still gets to keep the horse, I just receive an additional copy.

Piracy isn't theft. It can still be wrong, but it's not theft. Saying it's theft is just silly. It's the same as the "meat is murder" argument. No, it's not, by definition. It's dishonest and no one will fall for it, so just please stop embarrassing yourselves and stop using it.

Let's say we have a company with funds of $100000. They have a software out that costs $20. Now I write a piece of code that automatically torrents a pirated version of this copy and saves it to my harddrive, and as soon as it's finished, it starts over downloading a new copy. If piracy really is theft, and they lose money when I pirate, then they'd go bankrupt after I've downloaded their program 5000 times.

What they "lose" is hypothetical money which I might or might not have spent on their product. They also "lose" that when I choose a competitor's product or a free alternative (or simply don't buy anything at all).
menino
catscratches wrote:
No, it would be like me making a copy of Ocalhon's horse. Ocalhon still gets to keep the horse, I just receive an additional copy.

Piracy isn't theft. It can still be wrong, but it's not theft. Saying it's theft is just silly. It's the same as the "meat is murder" argument. No, it's not, by definition. It's dishonest and no one will fall for it, so just please stop embarrassing yourselves and stop using it.

Let's say we have a company with funds of $100000. They have a software out that costs $20. Now I write a piece of code that automatically torrents a pirated version of this copy and saves it to my harddrive, and as soon as it's finished, it starts over downloading a new copy. If piracy really is theft, and they lose money when I pirate, then they'd go bankrupt after I've downloaded their program 5000 times.


I think if ocalhoun allowed you to copy her horse in the first place with permission, then its alright, but since its her horse, you can't copy it without her permission, and most likely ocalhoun will charge you for it.

Software made by someone is called intellectual property, and they have conditions when they release the software, so you have to buy it on their terms.
However, if you see the software from outside and develop it yourself without copying the code... that is ok, legally (more or less, but differs according to patents and their laws).
catscratches
I know what intellectual property is, I know what the conditions are and I know the legal issues it involves in my country and in USA. (That's how I know it's not theft.) I know it's legally wrong, but this is about whether it's morally wrong (and also whether it's legally theft, which it isn't; it's infringement).
FunDa
Wikipedia is going to black out tomorrow in protest of SOPA.


NO WIKIPEDIA TOMORROW..


Laughing Laughing Laughing I don't know how I'll do my homework tomorrow Shocked Shocked Shocked
cybersa
15 hours more for Wikipedia.
It is one of the needed website for all user.
Sad
deanhills
Bondings wrote:
By the way, SOPA was just shelved - but there is still similar legislation like PIPA that has received less attention.
Wow! That is AWESOME news. Doesn't look as though PIPA is that solid either, but looks as though the blackout offensive made a really great point. Very Happy

Quote:
Does PIPA have a good chance of becoming law?

Unclear. Currently, the bill still has bipartisan support in the Senate, but it is growing weaker by the day. This past weekend, six Republican senators wrote a letter to Sen. Reid, asking him to postpone a vote on the bill. And the White House issued a statement declaring that it “will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet,” a vague threat to veto either SOPA or PIPA, if one of these bills managed to make it all the way to President Obama’s desk.

Source: http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/sopa-vs-pipa-anti-piracy-bills-uproar-explained/
Bondings
And there it changes again, SOPA is apparently back: http://judiciary.house.gov/news/01172012.html .
liljp617
Wikipedia, reddit, and a number of other large sites will be "blacking out" tomorrow (Jan. 18th) in protest. I will be joining them along with many others in the Wordpress community.

NOTE: If you host a blog/site using Wordpress.org, there are free search engine-friendly plugins you can install which will blackout your website tomorrow. The plugins will set up an automatic redirect to a page encouraging visitors to contact Congress and voice their disapproval. Of course, you can do this redirect manually pretty easily if you don't use Wordpress -- believe it's called a 503 redirect. Simple Google should be able to walk you through it quickly.
tingkagol
By any means, I am no expert regarding the issue, but I believe if this bill is enacted, people will eventually be charged for accessing US websites - the bulk of the costs coming from self-policing more than anything else. Once gov't-run watchdogs will begin closing 'infringing' websites, site owners will begin spending more money to fund the monitoring of their site's contents and activities. This will especially be a pain to small sites and sites with user-generated content (facebook)- which can be really costly to police.

Ultimately many sites will close down except for a few established ones that can afford top-notch self-policing. Some may even begin charging visitors to off-set the expenses. The result? The internet will no longer be free.

...

Then again, this won't matter come December 21, 2012 because the world will end as predicted by the Mayans.
ocalhoun
catscratches wrote:

What they "lose" is hypothetical money which I might or might not have spent on their product. They also "lose" that when I choose a competitor's product or a free alternative (or simply don't buy anything at all).

My point exactly.
tingkagol
On that note, here's what Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia said during an interview with CNN:
Quote:
CNN: There have been some really big statistics thrown around on the side of people who support these (anti-) piracy laws. Millions of jobs at stake. Billions of dollars in revenue loss for the U.S. economy. How do you respond to those figures?

Wales: There was an academic study done by the London School of Economics that says the figures thrown around by Hollywood are wishful thinking. Wishful thinking meaning if you count every single download and pretend the person would have paid full retail for something instead of just not consuming it, then you get some pretty large numbers. But, from the point of view of an economist, that isn't necessarily the right way to measure.

So I think those figures are radically overstated, particularly as we see that overall spending is up for entertainment.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/17/tech/web/wikipedia-sopa-blackout-qa/?hpt=wo_c2
Afaceinthematrix
catscratches wrote:
Piracy isn't theft. It can still be wrong, but it's not theft. Saying it's theft is just silly. It's the same as the "meat is murder" argument. No, it's not, by definition. It's dishonest and no one will fall for it, so just please stop embarrassing yourselves and stop using it.


From my understanding, theft is taking someone's property without their consent. I see nothing in that definition about tangible property or intellectual property. The horse analogy may be a little off, but piracy is still taking property (even though it's intellectual property) without the consent of the author(s).

Quote:
What they "lose" is hypothetical money which I might or might not have spent on their product. They also "lose" that when I choose a competitor's product or a free alternative (or simply don't buy anything at all).
ocalhoun wrote:
My point exactly.


So, then by the same logic, if you steal something off the self at a store but leave them the exact amount of money that it cost them, then it isn't stealing because all they're losing is hypothetical money that they would have gotten if you decide you wanted to buy it?

Quote:
Wales: There was an academic study done by the London School of Economics that says the figures thrown around by Hollywood are wishful thinking. Wishful thinking meaning if you count every single download and pretend the person would have paid full retail for something instead of just not consuming it, then you get some pretty large numbers. But, from the point of view of an economist, that isn't necessarily the right way to measure.


I've always thought this but that is quite irrelevant that it's still stealing. If I make a source of media, and you want to use it, then I expect you to pay for it (unless I give it away for free) or not use it. It's that simple.

I don't know why people have such a difficult issue with this. People jump through hoops trying to justify stealing to themselves just so that they don't feel bad about using thousands of dollars worth of product that they do not have rights to use. Then many of them use this lame excuse that information should be free! Well I ask this, then should all teachers teach for free? Their salary pays for a service because they give out no product. Similarly, if I right a book then I am teaching the reader and if you download an illegal copy of that book then you are essentially expecting me to be your little slave.

So... Should teachers teach for free? Should musicians be required to perform for you for free? Should software writers write software for you for free? You have to pay for services; get over it. If you don't want to pay for the service, then do not use it.
truespeed
With wiki down today, I think smaller sites will gain a lot,wiki dominates the top spot for most google searches,leaving very few crumbs for the rest of the site owners,so if my site was getting lower ranked and less traffic because of wiki there would be no way i would blackout my site today,i would cash in. Smile
loremar
Google is also protesting against SOPA. They placed a link in their homepage to speak up against it.
ankurthakur
For those, who don't know How SOPA will affect the Internet and all, can see the Video below :

deanhills
Bondings wrote:
And there it changes again, SOPA is apparently back: http://judiciary.house.gov/news/01172012.html .
YUCK! Glad I still have my signature as I was considering taking it down last night. Can just imagine the mega corporations are out lobbying like crazy.

I still find it enormously unethical and hypocritical. First those mega corporations through all of their Websites over the last decade perfected the FREE software that we need to use to download their marketing tools, including music clips. In order to score billions through their marketing. And now they want to sue those people for using the music clips. Like creating "thieves" and "pirates" who they now want to coerce in paying for their products that they had been flogging for free on the Internet.

But more than that, my concern is about our freedom of movement on the Internet. Once this legislation is passed it may just be the beginning. They are going to load lots of other things to the extent that one of these days we will not be allowed to roam freely on pseudonyms. We will have to have a registered account and through that only may be able to create usernames. We will all be registered for scrutiny. And next of course we will have to pay registration fees. As of course once there is legislation in place it will need to be implemented and that will cost billions of dollars - i.e. investigations, prosecutions etc. And guess who is going to pay for that? They will then have to create further Bills and we then have the Internet under scrutiny and management of Governments,. I'm sure the only two that are going to benefit from the legislation are the mega corporations and Governments. We are going to lose out in a major way.

I sincerely hope that everyone who stands for freedom of movement on the Internet will do EVERYTHING they can to cast their vote against this Bill. If they live in the United States they should lobby their local Congress Members. If they live outside the United States they can still cast their votes. Those living outside have to realize that this Bill WILL be effecting them too. It is going to effect all of us.
catscratches
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
catscratches wrote:
Piracy isn't theft. It can still be wrong, but it's not theft. Saying it's theft is just silly. It's the same as the "meat is murder" argument. No, it's not, by definition. It's dishonest and no one will fall for it, so just please stop embarrassing yourselves and stop using it.
From my understanding, theft is taking someone's property without their consent. I see nothing in that definition about tangible property or intellectual property. The horse analogy may be a little off, but piracy is still taking property (even though it's intellectual property) without the consent of the author(s).
And every legal system in the world disagrees with you.
US Legal.com wrote:
Generally, a person commits the crime of theft of property if he or she:

Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;
Knowingly obtains by deception control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property; or
Knowingly obtains or exerts control over property in the custody of a law enforcement agency which was explicitly represented to the person by an agent of the law enforcement agency as being stolen.

Without proof of intent to deprive, no criminal act has occurred.
My emphasis

In piracy, the content owner is not deprived of the product. (S)He still has full access to the product. Theft is not merely taking something without consent, it's taking something away from someone without consent.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Quote:
What they "lose" is hypothetical money which I might or might not have spent on their product. They also "lose" that when I choose a competitor's product or a free alternative (or simply don't buy anything at all).
ocalhoun wrote:
My point exactly.
So, then by the same logic, if you steal something off the self at a store but leave them the exact amount of money that it cost them, then it isn't stealing because all they're losing is hypothetical money that they would have gotten if you decide you wanted to buy it?
Any comparison with physical goods is inherently flawed as they are not unlimited in quantity and require manual labor for each item.
Peterssidan
What will happen to Frihost if the law is passed? Will the servers have move outside the US?
Bondings
Peterssidan wrote:
What will happen to Frihost if the law is passed? Will the servers have move outside the US?

That might help a bit, but if the ICE seizes our domain name or blocks the dns for all US citizens, there isn't really much that I can do. The internet may be global, but the US is still holding the strings.

The blackout of Wikipedia and Reddit and the messages of Google and the like are even being covered on the front page by Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/18/wikipedia-goes-dark-for-24-hours-to-protest-us-web-piracy-bills/ .
Ankhanu
deanhills
[quote="Bondings"]
Quote:
The White House raised concerns over the weekend, pledging to work with Congress to battle piracy and counterfeiting while defending free expression, privacy and innovation in the Internet. The administration signaled it might use its veto power, if necessary.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/18/wikipedia-goes-dark-for-24-hours-to-protest-us-web-piracy-bills/#ixzz1jq3knv6T
Sounds like Obama wishing to please everyone. The mega corporations who are footing everyone's election campaign bills as well as the people who vote for them. Typical politicians. Rolling Eyes
SonLight
I had to come out of hiding temporarily to comment on the current Internet censorship proposals. I haven't read about the provisions in detail, but I strongly oppose the use of injunctions without offering the opportunity for accused rights violators to respond, and I think any added ways to attack infringers must be limited to cases where it can be shown that DMCA notifications were given and ignored, that there is unusually strong evidence of infringement, and that either the alleged infringers have had substantial opportunity to respond or that the injunction is limited in scope and automatically terminated if the alleged offenders respond with evidence casting doubt on the offense. There must also be penalties for improper use.

I do not believe the current proposals can be patched to be tolerable. I do think that eventually some relief for egregious infringement of copyright violation needs to be given to the industry. Perhaps some terms of the DMCA will need to be re-negotiated as part of the bargain.

I believe that an acceptable provision will affect almost no content in the US or most European countries where the DMCA is effectively enforced, because there is already court access with injunction authority in those cases. The need to command third parties to boycott a site is very intrusive and must be reserved for cases which cannot get effective legal review under DMCA.
deanhills
Great post SonLight. Almost the equivalent of illegal immigrants in the United States given amnesty as a kick off for negotiations where to go with this and how to fix the problem. Those guys who are at the tail end of the bill should be given a voice to respond without fear of prosecution. And the negotiations should be limited to the alleged perpetrators, not the whole of the Internet. The two bills are blatant attempts at seeking control of the Internet and completely wrong. I admire those guys who went for blacking out their Websites. At least it gave a signal to the law makers that there are people out there who they will have to take into consideration as well.
http://www.usamnesty.org/
Afaceinthematrix
catscratches wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
catscratches wrote:
Piracy isn't theft. It can still be wrong, but it's not theft. Saying it's theft is just silly. It's the same as the "meat is murder" argument. No, it's not, by definition. It's dishonest and no one will fall for it, so just please stop embarrassing yourselves and stop using it.
From my understanding, theft is taking someone's property without their consent. I see nothing in that definition about tangible property or intellectual property. The horse analogy may be a little off, but piracy is still taking property (even though it's intellectual property) without the consent of the author(s).
And every legal system in the world disagrees with you.
US Legal.com wrote:
Generally, a person commits the crime of theft of property if he or she:

Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;
Knowingly obtains by deception control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property; or
Knowingly obtains or exerts control over property in the custody of a law enforcement agency which was explicitly represented to the person by an agent of the law enforcement agency as being stolen.

Without proof of intent to deprive, no criminal act has occurred.
My emphasis

In piracy, the content owner is not deprived of the product. (S)He still has full access to the product. Theft is not merely taking something without consent, it's taking something away from someone without consent.


No... Ever heard of identity theft? What tangible good are you depriving someone of? You're essentially "copying" their identity.
codersfriend
are we going to lose frihost if this gets approved?
Bondings
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
No... Ever heard of identity theft? What tangible good are you depriving someone of? You're essentially "copying" their identity.

First of all it's fraud, which is very similar to theft.

And it's a lot more than just copying an identity. If I dress up like you and make my face look like you, this seems perfectly legal to me. If I use that look to empty your bank account, then it is fraud/theft and called identity theft.

@codersfriend, I don't think it would have that big consequences that soon - at least I hope so.
tingkagol
codersfriend wrote:
are we going to lose frihost if this gets approved?

Probably, if the guys behind it (Bondings and co.) aren't careful about the content of the sites being hosted.
Ankhanu
The sites/servers would still exist, the threat is that frihost.com won't lead to it.

If these things pass, I'm sure there will be a new way of navigating the internet, well, new as in going back to really old Razz Everything will go IP based and there will likely be sites that compile DNS info so you can find the sites you're after. It'll be WAY less convenient, but, we'd get around it.
catscratches
Or you could just use non-American DNS servers.
deanhills
catscratches wrote:
Or you could just use non-American DNS servers.
Excellent suggestion. The US may find it has shot itself in the foot from a marketing point of view. Particularly servers who have thrived on clients from all over the world. May be a business opportunity for those in Europe possibly.
truespeed
America has a lot of power over the internet,but with that power comes responsibility,if they misuse that responsibility,the major and minor players of the internet will just upsticks and move away from the USA and they will lose all control over it.
jmlworld
It seems that federals do not need SOPA and PIPA legislation anymore. They've already shuttered MegaUpload after a so-called movie industry representative claimed that they've lost $500 million of potential income because of this file sharing website.

And the most ridiculous thing is that the government will act fast once a greedy corporate mentions potential lost money, which is like us, ordinary people, claiming that we lost $1,000,000 of potential income because we didn't win a lottery.

I'm not defending illegal file sharing. Notorious people have already shared few premium applications I was selling online, but that doesn't mean there are not legitimate back-ups and legal content on these sites in question.

Next day, we'll see Hollywood suing Wikipedia & IMDB because these community websites have published millions of pages about movie plots, which in return cost Hollywood $[insert whopping numbers here] of potential income.
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
catscratches wrote:
Or you could just use non-American DNS servers.
Excellent suggestion. The US may find it has shot itself in the foot from a marketing point of view. Particularly servers who have thrived on clients from all over the world. May be a business opportunity for those in Europe possibly.

truespeed wrote:
America has a lot of power over the internet,but with that power comes responsibility,if they misuse that responsibility,the major and minor players of the internet will just upsticks and move away from the USA and they will lose all control over it.

The idea of moving to infrastructure based outside the US is a good one, in basic concept.
However, the monetary cost of changing the infrastructure base from its current US location to an international location would be staggering. It's all fine and good to say "move!" until it's you that has to buy or rent land/a building on foreign soil and move your entire family elsewhere... it's a very expensive proposition. Yes, there are providers in other countries, but do you think they have invested in the infrastructure required to meet the load of even a fraction of the user demand that the US based companies currently provide? It's an enormous undertaking.
Hexes
I hope that SOPA will be abandoned! US government is trying to force this ridiculous law to control the internet. Freedom is crucial quality of the Internet and it should remain unchanged.
_AVG_
I think SOPA is just an attempt by Entertainment and Film companies to try and make more money. They've just taken the mask of "anti-piracy". The laws seem ill-thought and the clauses are perhaps too anti-democratic. And if you think SOPA is bad, just read about PIPA!
deanhills
_AVG_ wrote:
I think SOPA is just an attempt by Entertainment and Film companies to try and make more money. They've just taken the mask of "anti-piracy". The laws seem ill-thought and the clauses are perhaps too anti-democratic. And if you think SOPA is bad, just read about PIPA!
I think it is an attempt to control the Internet. And yes, if they control the Internet then they will be able to make much more money. Like the banks who control all of our money. Twisted Evil
ocalhoun
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
\
Quote:
What they "lose" is hypothetical money which I might or might not have spent on their product. They also "lose" that when I choose a competitor's product or a free alternative (or simply don't buy anything at all).
ocalhoun wrote:
My point exactly.


So, then by the same logic, if you steal something off the self at a store but leave them the exact amount of money that it cost them, then it isn't stealing because all they're losing is hypothetical money that they would have gotten if you decide you wanted to buy it?

Assuming you mean the exact amount of money it cost them to get that item on the shelf, not just the wholesale price, yes, I see no problem with that.

In an ideal world, all stores would work like that.
(Try googling 'cost the limit of price' ... assuming the results haven't been censored yet.)

...Or is there some particular reason why I should feel guilty about not wanting to pay more for stuff, just to pad the profit margin?
tingkagol
The numbers:
Quote:

http://www.sopastrike.com/numbers

I personally liked the one with the total number of senators lobbying for anti-sopa. No one saw that coming. Rolling Eyes
*sigh* Politicians.... tsk tsk tsk
deanhills
Great post tingkagol and thanks for the stats. I also found the contrast of the senators from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on 18th of January - same day - mind blowing! Shocked

At the same time GREAT news. Cool
foumy6
I signed the petition we acually spent a week learning about this is my multimedia class.
deanhills
foumy6 wrote:
I signed the petition we acually spent a week learning about this is my multimedia class.
Very interesting. What was your conclusion from all of this? Smile
foumy6
deanhills wrote:
foumy6 wrote:
I signed the petition we acually spent a week learning about this is my multimedia class.
Very interesting. What was your conclusion from all of this? Smile

That if this passes I think that one of purposes of the internet will now be gone. I get the good in what they are trying to do, but They are just taking it to far.
deanhills
foumy6 wrote:
I get the good in what they are trying to do, but They are just taking it to far.
Agreed. Like trying to control the Internet so that they can take care not of present misdeeds but future ones too, their way. Next thing all Websites have to be licensed. And SSL Certificates made into something that is compulsory and only given by a Licensing Authority that is certified and has to pay BIG bucks to be certified, but everyone gets to make money who are certified.
FunDa
I really really hope SOPA is blocked.


Even without SOPA and PIPA, the US is able to take down MegaUpload.

Agreed that MegaUpload had lots of pirated stuff, but there were a lot of personal files on there too..


Rivals to Megaupload have seen a huge rise in traffic after file-sharing site Megaupload was shut down by the FBI and its flamboyant founder arrested in a high-profile raid.
After the FBI shut down file-sharing site Megaupload and charged staff such as flamboyant founder Kim Dotcom - formerly Kim Schmitz - with copyright violations, users have flocked to rivals such as RapidShare, Hotfile and 4Shared.
If the American authorities hoped that the move would dent the popularity of such 'cyber-locker' sites which are mainly used for sharing music and video for free they have been very much mistaken.
Rapidshare, Hotfile and 4Shared, have reaped the rewards of the arrest of Megaupload's 'pirate captain' Kim Dotcom.
One site, 4Shared, which has 2.5bn page views per month, is now twice the size Megaupload was before it shut down and the others have seen the numbers using their services nearly doubled.

From the Daily Mail
Alaskacameradude
The whole thing is a bunch of crap in my opinion. As a video producer, I have some
knowledge of copyright law, I had to take one law class in college dealing with copyright.
One of the few things I remember, is that it is YOUR responsibility to copyright and
enforce that copyright. These companies want to force other people and companies
to enforce their copyright for them.

Again, I am one of the last people that wants pirates stealing copyright material,
I make my living producing copyright material! BUT, I also use the new technology
in my business. I sell video online and transfer LARGE HD video files using my
high speed connection to clients. Sometimes people buy stock footage from me.
Sometimes news companies buy video footage from events. I need to be able to
transfer these files quickly. If the company at the other end does not have a
server to allow me to FTP them the video, I use services like Megaupload, Sendspace,
Dropbox and so on. Now these services are being targeted as 'pirates'.
I was also contacted at one point as 'someone' was 'suspicious' saying that
'nobody' needs to use the type of bandwidth I was using 'unless you are pirating
movies'. How about you guys try enforcing your copyright? Maybe use the technology
for you? Guess what, you can rent movies for like $3, I don't even know why
piracy would be a big problem, it wouldn't be worth my time to download a movie,
and as I usually like to watch movies at my big TV on the couch instead of sitting
in a chair in front of my computer, I would then have to buy a blank DVD or
Blu Ray and burn off any downloaded movie? Who does that when you can just
go rent one for $3.99? I mean, I guess people are doing it, but I have a VERY
STRONG feeling that the movie studios are exaggerating BIG TIME their claims
of 'lost profits' and so on.
FunDa
Alaskacameradude wrote:
The whole thing is a bunch of crap in my opinion. As a video producer, I have some
knowledge of copyright law, I had to take one law class in college dealing with copyright.
One of the few things I remember, is that it is YOUR responsibility to copyright and
enforce that copyright. These companies want to force other people and companies
to enforce their copyright for them.

Again, I am one of the last people that wants pirates stealing copyright material,
I make my living producing copyright material! BUT, I also use the new technology
in my business. I sell video online and transfer LARGE HD video files using my
high speed connection to clients. Sometimes people buy stock footage from me.
Sometimes news companies buy video footage from events. I need to be able to
transfer these files quickly. If the company at the other end does not have a
server to allow me to FTP them the video, I use services like Megaupload, Sendspace,
Dropbox and so on. Now these services are being targeted as 'pirates'.
I was also contacted at one point as 'someone' was 'suspicious' saying that
'nobody' needs to use the type of bandwidth I was using 'unless you are pirating
movies'. How about you guys try enforcing your copyright? Maybe use the technology
for you? Guess what, you can rent movies for like $3, I don't even know why
piracy would be a big problem, it wouldn't be worth my time to download a movie,
and as I usually like to watch movies at my big TV on the couch instead of sitting
in a chair in front of my computer, I would then have to buy a blank DVD or
Blu Ray and burn off any downloaded movie? Who does that when you can just
go rent one for $3.99? I mean, I guess people are doing it, but I have a VERY
STRONG feeling that the movie studios are exaggerating BIG TIME their claims
of 'lost profits' and so on.


That was very insightful.

I too agree that an low-cost movie rental which is EASY TO USE would be what most people would be looking for.

If I can select what I want to watch, when I want to watch it, I will be happy. Especially something which nags me is that TV shows air in USA long before I can get it on cable here. And there is no way to legally and easily watch these shows ..

For movies, I mostly go to the theatre coz its fun with friends.. But TV shows, why can't they give an easy way out and not keep the suspense over months while it slowly comes to my cable network ...
ocalhoun
...That is part of the problem.
The legal distribution networks (physical sales, physical rentals, theaters, cable TV) are becoming obsolete with the advent (and improvement) of streaming video and video-over-internet downloading.

They would do well to make a legal online distribution network.

(Of course, that is only part of the problem... The other part being that people like to get stuff for free instead of paying for it.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
(Of course, that is only part of the problem... The other part being that people like to get stuff for free instead of paying for it.)
But in that there is also a problem. As your very large media corporations have been gearing their marketing in a large part helping people to download some of their marketing stuff for free. In other words setting them up for piracy. On the one hand they want everyone to know about their products and they are making loads of money with that, and at the same time say "do not touch", so they can make even more money. Different kind of "dynamic" ethics at play here. Sort of marketing their own unique brand of inverted piracy?
Related topics
Federal response to Katrina was faster than Hugo,
Dems: these are merely the facts
How much time do u spend on computer?
One-Stop Online Content Shop
Windows is freer than Linux
Gaza Human Shield?
english threat
Please Hijack this topic!
A picture of your face + the Internet = Full Disclosure
Judge Dredd
Vote against Censorship of the World Internet
Do you go to record stores?
Megaupload.com domain was SEIZED......
Cybercrime Law
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.