MOD EDIT: I do not mind that this is Nolani so long as it stays respectful. Normally, this wouldn't belong here. Other mods, you /can/ move it and what not but please consider leaving it. - Sierraa
Hey everyone, I've got some pretty dark news for the folks living in the United States - like we need anymore, right? Recently and quietly, Congress has been trying to pass a new bill - SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act. Online piracy is a serious issue, but this new bill they're proposing is completely asinine and will no doubt completely RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO up the web entirely.
Watch this brief but informative video on exactly why this bill is idiotic and Orwellian. It describes the importance of the situation far better than I can.
http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa/
To simply put it, this bill allows the government to order the removal of specific copyrighted material from websites (not in US jurisdiction) and their search engines. If the order is not met, they're allowed to close down the site. It is severely crippling to the art community as it discourages people from being creative and punishes those who share ideas.
In this day and age, we as artists heavily depend on the web to market or display our artwork. You can imagine how difficult it would be not having a proper platform to exchange ideas and work with other artists - deviantart, tumblr or whatever have you. That and the threat of having your balls sued to the wall for sharing artwork that has copyrighted material in it.
With that being said, PLEASE look at the form below the video. Fill it out and send it off to your local representative and let them know what you think of their bullshit!
__________________________________________
IMPORTANT: New SOPA Bill Affects Artists
Charlie Dayman
Cuilan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Dayman
To simply put it, this bill gives private companies (read as greedy assholes) the right to shutdown any site they deem suspicious or hosts copyrighted material - youtube, facebook, tumblr, and google to name a few.
If they're going to shut down only big sites, nice. Small site owners would love that.
turbo234
Cuilan
Maybe, but the OP makes this thing sound great for competition and innovation.
HigherMinion
It will do much the opposite, and that's what the video suggests... New sites starting up will be gunned down by the big corps. Sounds terrifying! Big brother watching you watch them.
Tommy's
@ Cuilan
For innovation the most important thing is to bring ideas and expertises together. Back in the 50's the place where the best ideas started were the tea-houses. Why? Because it brought together people of different expertises, which united, could have great ideas.
YouTube isn't a big player, its a tea-house. It brings together all kinds of people. Shutting them down won't lead to more innovation because smaller sites can flourish. Quite the opposite. Small users (which are not able to put up their own company or website!) can simply post a video on YouTube. YouTube is the one thing being innovative and offers a place for competition. And so is SoundCloud. It offers smaller music makes without labels and all to show what they can do.
For smaller users sites like YouTube, DeviantART, etc. etc. are the best way to reach a brought audience. So when OP makes things sound great for competition and innovation, he is absolutely right.
Charlie, you have my voice and support, sadly I'm not an American resident and therefore can't help you out on that website
I truly think this is a wrong direction we are heading in. With America up front. The amount of lawsuits there are just absurd (or at least this is the message we receive in Europe, but if video's are being removed because of a song playing in the background...). Stop this development people, not just for America, but for everyone!
For innovation the most important thing is to bring ideas and expertises together. Back in the 50's the place where the best ideas started were the tea-houses. Why? Because it brought together people of different expertises, which united, could have great ideas.
YouTube isn't a big player, its a tea-house. It brings together all kinds of people. Shutting them down won't lead to more innovation because smaller sites can flourish. Quite the opposite. Small users (which are not able to put up their own company or website!) can simply post a video on YouTube. YouTube is the one thing being innovative and offers a place for competition. And so is SoundCloud. It offers smaller music makes without labels and all to show what they can do.
For smaller users sites like YouTube, DeviantART, etc. etc. are the best way to reach a brought audience. So when OP makes things sound great for competition and innovation, he is absolutely right.
Charlie, you have my voice and support, sadly I'm not an American resident and therefore can't help you out on that website
I truly think this is a wrong direction we are heading in. With America up front. The amount of lawsuits there are just absurd (or at least this is the message we receive in Europe, but if video's are being removed because of a song playing in the background...). Stop this development people, not just for America, but for everyone!
Charlie Dayman
Quote:
Originally Posted by HigherMinion
It will do much the opposite, and that's what the video suggests... New sites starting up will be gunned down by the big corps. Sounds terrifying! Big brother watching you watch them.
This.
The larger sites might be able to fend off the law with their crack team of lawyers, but smaller companies wouldn't stand a chance. And even if sites like facebook or google were to survive, they'd have to monitor everything that's posted by users.
Want to show off a neat music video to your friends on youtube? Can't do that; you'd have to buy the CD for that. Show your friends a cool scene from a movie? You'll have to either buy the DVD or tickets to show them that. Show your appreciation of the latest movies with some fanart? Nope, can't do that either.
The larger sites might be able to fend off the law with their crack team of lawyers, but smaller companies wouldn't stand a chance. And even if sites like facebook or google were to survive, they'd have to monitor everything that's posted by users.
Want to show off a neat music video to your friends on youtube? Can't do that; you'd have to buy the CD for that. Show your friends a cool scene from a movie? You'll have to either buy the DVD or tickets to show them that. Show your appreciation of the latest movies with some fanart? Nope, can't do that either.
Mireles
This is the third bill like this they have tried to pass in the last two years... if its like all the others... it won't even make it past its first vote....
The bill does not shut down sites... it gives authority to the government to tell sites with copywriter content to remove content that or remove it from being a result in any search engines if its a site that is not in US jurisdiction... if they don't comply then they can shut it down.
The first bill they tried to pass like this "Proctect IP Act" (Intellectual Property)... was structured similarly giving the government the same overreaching to authority to silence sites they don't like. Plus the authority to shake down internet providers to see what you been downloading. Their focus was wikileaks at the time. Bill died in the Senate because it was never allowed to come to a vote.
Its important to petition like the OP promotes... but you don't have to be afraid until it passes at-least one branch of congress.... and were talking about a congress that can't even make a full annual budget without pissing all over each other.
US Senator Ron Wyden was the Senator that was responsible for killing the last bill like this... and I'm pretty sure he plans to do the same with this one
http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/pre...e-3bec95d944be
Don't misunderstand this bill.... it has nothing to do with innovation or leveling the playing field for smaller sites... its about censorship of the internet. This bill put corporations and the government in charge of what you can and can not see.
The bill does not shut down sites... it gives authority to the government to tell sites with copywriter content to remove content that or remove it from being a result in any search engines if its a site that is not in US jurisdiction... if they don't comply then they can shut it down.
The first bill they tried to pass like this "Proctect IP Act" (Intellectual Property)... was structured similarly giving the government the same overreaching to authority to silence sites they don't like. Plus the authority to shake down internet providers to see what you been downloading. Their focus was wikileaks at the time. Bill died in the Senate because it was never allowed to come to a vote.
Its important to petition like the OP promotes... but you don't have to be afraid until it passes at-least one branch of congress.... and were talking about a congress that can't even make a full annual budget without pissing all over each other.
US Senator Ron Wyden was the Senator that was responsible for killing the last bill like this... and I'm pretty sure he plans to do the same with this one
http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/pre...e-3bec95d944be
Don't misunderstand this bill.... it has nothing to do with innovation or leveling the playing field for smaller sites... its about censorship of the internet. This bill put corporations and the government in charge of what you can and can not see.
Charlie Dayman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mireles
The bill does not shut down sites... it gives authority to the government to tell sites with copywriter content to remove content that or remove it from being a result in any search engines if its a site that is not in US jurisdiction... if they don't comply then they can shut it down.
The first bill they tried to pass like this "Proctect IP Act" (Intellectual Property)... was structured similarly giving the government the same overreaching to authority to silence sites they don't like. Plus the authority to shake down internet providers to see what you been downloading. Their focus was wikileaks at the time. Bill died in the Senate because it was never allowed to come to a vote.
Its important to petition like the OP promotes... but you don't have to be afraid until it passes at-least one branch of congress.... and were talking about a congress that can't even make a full annual budget without pissing all over each other. Thanks for the info, I'll update the first post. I just wanted to get the word out on this because they're hoping to pass it before Christmas - so very soon.
What makes me a bit nervous about this is that both the Dems and Repus are behind the passing of this - as far as yesterday goes. The bill has a lot of financial backing from the MPA, RIA and their corresponding lobbyists. And after seeing Congress' ruling on the "In God We Trust" motto, I wouldn't put something stupid like this past them.
I'm most likely acting paranoid, but I figured I'd let people know that this bill is in the works.
Spiritz
From what im aware SOPA would only be able to act within the law so to speak.
Ive forgotten who went after the pirate bay but even they had problems - retarded trial if you ask me.
Sopa would have to prove first that a sites dealing in copied software then go to court.
Most websites are contacted first then their isps etc and i think google and youtube have been thru the processes before and survived because they do act upon court orders etc.
They cant walk in and shut a site down unless they go thru the legal route and even that takes time - remember the pirate bay farce where one of the founders was stated incorrectly to be raking in millions and profiting from it.
What you will find is SOPA will scare most isps in usa - oh no its the secret police and id better do what im told without checking if im in the wrong or not.
If your worried about SOPA try living in the uk - quite a few years back we had to have a licence to watch tv broadcasts or even listen to the radio - please note that even now we still need a tv licence and out of the tv companies we have - only 1 gets the licence money and thats BBC.Technically in the uk the laws are that screwed its unreal and the bbc wanted to include PC monitors as its possible to recieve tv broadcasts on a pc.Technically we are not even meant to record anything off radio nor tv ( lol`s at vcrs and tape recorders etc )
Ive forgotten who went after the pirate bay but even they had problems - retarded trial if you ask me.
Sopa would have to prove first that a sites dealing in copied software then go to court.
Most websites are contacted first then their isps etc and i think google and youtube have been thru the processes before and survived because they do act upon court orders etc.
They cant walk in and shut a site down unless they go thru the legal route and even that takes time - remember the pirate bay farce where one of the founders was stated incorrectly to be raking in millions and profiting from it.
What you will find is SOPA will scare most isps in usa - oh no its the secret police and id better do what im told without checking if im in the wrong or not.
If your worried about SOPA try living in the uk - quite a few years back we had to have a licence to watch tv broadcasts or even listen to the radio - please note that even now we still need a tv licence and out of the tv companies we have - only 1 gets the licence money and thats BBC.Technically in the uk the laws are that screwed its unreal and the bbc wanted to include PC monitors as its possible to recieve tv broadcasts on a pc.Technically we are not even meant to record anything off radio nor tv ( lol`s at vcrs and tape recorders etc )
Lydeck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mireles
The video defiantly exaggerates the reach of the bill... but the US doesn't need any of that foolishness... The internet is the only pure free exchange of information there is... We don't need governments and businesses dictating what we can and can't see. If business want the right to control content for over a decade... there the ones that should have to innovate protection for it...
You sir, are a smart man. As are the others against this BS they keep trying to pass.
It'll be a sad day when the United States, the land of the free, has censored internet.
It'll be a sad day when the United States, the land of the free, has censored internet.
Aljasha
I haven't watched the video and don't know much about the law in the US, but in other countries you have no right to publish images of somebody unless they permit it explicitely. The whole thing going on on FB, Twitter etc is a nightmare for all, who like to protect their privacy.
Again, in other countries, if anything is done by you (originally) it is protected by copyright laws. Even if you publish things on the web and others download the content it breaks the law in some cases.
Tbh, I don't find this idea too bad in general and if you want to share your work with others, you'll find another way to do so.
Again, in other countries, if anything is done by you (originally) it is protected by copyright laws. Even if you publish things on the web and others download the content it breaks the law in some cases.
Tbh, I don't find this idea too bad in general and if you want to share your work with others, you'll find another way to do so.
Shayne Hawke
I was under the impression that the bill was going to a vote yesterday. Does anyone know what its current status is?
Mireles
It hasn't come to a vote in the house for whatever reason, probably being filibustered or blocked by someone.... Here is how i track bills and read the bills in full so you get all of the facts and none of the "BLBLBLBLBLAH!"
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show
dasmitchies
This reminds me when the U.S. government and record companies desperately tried to limit the sale and use of cassette recording equipment. We saw how well that worked in the 80s. Technology always outpaces the law and no court will allow anyone to end a website without court order. Given the amount of time a court order takes, this will prove impossible to enforce. International sites will not be attacked because the U.S. has treaties with every country involving international communications which trumps all U.S. law (except the constitution) while in force. This is just another desperate bid for Hollywood and the music industry. Slowly their business model is dying and they are slower to adapt. I find it funny that any use of the word tradition in these arguments is moronic. We didn't fight over internet, movie, television or recording law 100 years ago. (duh)
Well whatever, this was the eventual response to piracy and it won't work again. (heh we got rid of Napster and got torrents in return)
Well whatever, this was the eventual response to piracy and it won't work again. (heh we got rid of Napster and got torrents in return)
Old but new
Actually I beleave that 2 separate bills are being passed. One in the house of Reps, and one in the Congress. It's a very common practice in the US Government to things this way. Let me give you an example:
A teenager throws a temper tantrum and demands a new car for is 16 birthday.. The Parents (rightly so) say no to that little brat. "your not old enough for a car" they say.
This goes on for a week or so... the Kid Acts depressed and locks him self in his room. After a while the parents start to feel bad....
Then the kid Says " Can I at least go to Aspen with my friends?" The parents feeling sorry for him agree. Later that kid meets with his friends and announces " They fell for it, not only can I go to Aspen but they gave $500.00 to spend."
The point what I am saying here is that Bill was never meant to be passed.. The smaller and less obtrusive bill currently in the house will.. It's called misdirection... and Congress have been doing it for years.
So you may say OP was exaggerating, but I say hes trying to wake you up. Under that new law the federal Government will have authority to censor which domains MOST (not all) Americans will be able to access. Connect the dots...
The majority of Americans do not know that typing the IP address into the address bar will bypass this restriction. That's the very essence of the problem. Essentially the Government now has a way to control and influence popular opinion within the US.
It's plain censorship...
So no I don't think its an exaggeration..... hes not being alarmist....WAKE UP
A teenager throws a temper tantrum and demands a new car for is 16 birthday.. The Parents (rightly so) say no to that little brat. "your not old enough for a car" they say.
This goes on for a week or so... the Kid Acts depressed and locks him self in his room. After a while the parents start to feel bad....
Then the kid Says " Can I at least go to Aspen with my friends?" The parents feeling sorry for him agree. Later that kid meets with his friends and announces " They fell for it, not only can I go to Aspen but they gave $500.00 to spend."
The point what I am saying here is that Bill was never meant to be passed.. The smaller and less obtrusive bill currently in the house will.. It's called misdirection... and Congress have been doing it for years.
So you may say OP was exaggerating, but I say hes trying to wake you up. Under that new law the federal Government will have authority to censor which domains MOST (not all) Americans will be able to access. Connect the dots...
The majority of Americans do not know that typing the IP address into the address bar will bypass this restriction. That's the very essence of the problem. Essentially the Government now has a way to control and influence popular opinion within the US.
It's plain censorship...
So no I don't think its an exaggeration..... hes not being alarmist....WAKE UP
Sierraa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shayne Hawke
I was under the impression that the bill was going to a vote yesterday. Does anyone know what its current status is?
We should know in about a week. The white house has already threatened to veto it though. Unless they want to try to pass it twice, it probably wont go through.
womBonk
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with."
-Ayn Rand
much easier to deal with."
-Ayn Rand
Prestige
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Dayman
This.
The larger sites might be able to fend off the law with their crack team of lawyers, but smaller companies wouldn't stand a chance. And even if sites like facebook or google were to survive, they'd have to monitor everything that's posted by users.
Want to show off a neat music video to your friends on youtube? Can't do that; you'd have to buy the CD for that. Show your friends a cool scene from a movie? You'll have to either buy the DVD or tickets to show them that. Show your appreciation of the latest movies with some fanart? Nope, can't do that either. I have a question. I use Facebook & Google (and You tube -Well everything you listed in that post -.- ), would that mean that, considering I'm in Canada, the US Government couldn't do anything to stop w.e site based on Canada acts against that law ?
Like for example. The Domain : Yahoo.com is based in the US, but their other site, based in Canada - Yahoo.ca - would also be in violation of the law ?
If so, that sucks :/
The larger sites might be able to fend off the law with their crack team of lawyers, but smaller companies wouldn't stand a chance. And even if sites like facebook or google were to survive, they'd have to monitor everything that's posted by users.
Want to show off a neat music video to your friends on youtube? Can't do that; you'd have to buy the CD for that. Show your friends a cool scene from a movie? You'll have to either buy the DVD or tickets to show them that. Show your appreciation of the latest movies with some fanart? Nope, can't do that either. I have a question. I use Facebook & Google (and You tube -Well everything you listed in that post -.- ), would that mean that, considering I'm in Canada, the US Government couldn't do anything to stop w.e site based on Canada acts against that law ?
Like for example. The Domain : Yahoo.com is based in the US, but their other site, based in Canada - Yahoo.ca - would also be in violation of the law ?
If so, that sucks :/
Old but new
@prestige In the Continental US IE. Canada, USA, Mexico, (thou I doubt South America would covered) but that still is a possibility.
Death By An Arrow
Hopefully this doesnt have a major impact on Canada if it passes, but I doubt that considering the impact the states already has on us.
Just recently a proposal from the telecommunications oligopoly (did I use that right?) for usage-based billing was shot down by the CRTC (essentially the people who watch over telecommunications and legislate them. or thats my understanding. the rule makers), even though the CRTC is usually best buds with Bell, Shaw, and Rogers. The proposal, in essence, was that the 'Big 3' companies wanted to control pricing from smaller internet suppliers, and increase rates and give slower/same speeds because they thought it benefited the consumer. Somehow. But the CRTC came through and forced a change that essentially benefited the common people. Even through all the lobbying, monetary influence, and all, they still managed to see through their rouse
So, unrelated but hopefully something comes through for the US as well. The corporations don't always have to win, as long as a big enough ruccus is made by the people (i believe there was somewhere like 1.5million canadians signed a petition opposing the UBB proposal.)!
Question: Say this DOES go through, and they deemed deviantArt as being guilty of piracy of intellectual properties/whatever the bill is saying. Would that block deviantArt from Americans viewing or would it effectively terminate the website as a whole? Just curious.
Just recently a proposal from the telecommunications oligopoly (did I use that right?) for usage-based billing was shot down by the CRTC (essentially the people who watch over telecommunications and legislate them. or thats my understanding. the rule makers), even though the CRTC is usually best buds with Bell, Shaw, and Rogers. The proposal, in essence, was that the 'Big 3' companies wanted to control pricing from smaller internet suppliers, and increase rates and give slower/same speeds because they thought it benefited the consumer. Somehow. But the CRTC came through and forced a change that essentially benefited the common people. Even through all the lobbying, monetary influence, and all, they still managed to see through their rouse
So, unrelated but hopefully something comes through for the US as well. The corporations don't always have to win, as long as a big enough ruccus is made by the people (i believe there was somewhere like 1.5million canadians signed a petition opposing the UBB proposal.)!
Question: Say this DOES go through, and they deemed deviantArt as being guilty of piracy of intellectual properties/whatever the bill is saying. Would that block deviantArt from Americans viewing or would it effectively terminate the website as a whole? Just curious.
Sierraa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death By An Arrow
EDIT:I am wrong!
Quote:
Thought I understood the bill, but obviously not - I apologize for that. However, if you or anyone else have any links to external websites, please feel free to post them. I'd like to fill the first post with as much info as possible to help explain and bring notice to the topic. |
Intended to combat the trade in pirated movies and music, the two bills would give copyright holders and law enforcement officials added powers to cut off websites and require search engines, payment collectors and others to block access.
So yes! The above listed would be blocked and search engines would be forced to remove any and all links to the material.
Charlie Dayman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuilan
|
Quote:
