SOPA anyone?
- Thread starter AshesofWake
- Start date
[quote name='62t']Eventually everything will just move to counties where US government can't touch. Then what? Do they just ask internet provide to IP block?[/QUOTE]
Well, that's part of what SOPA/PIPA were about.
Giving the government the power to order ISPs to IP block foreign sites that are hosting pirated material. That's where all the cries of censorship were coming from.
It's just a tough issue in a global society with a global internet. Not much that can be done unless some time in the decent future when globalization has increased dramatically to the point that copyright becomes international law. And I honestly don't see that ever happening.
Well, that's part of what SOPA/PIPA were about.
Giving the government the power to order ISPs to IP block foreign sites that are hosting pirated material. That's where all the cries of censorship were coming from.
It's just a tough issue in a global society with a global internet. Not much that can be done unless some time in the decent future when globalization has increased dramatically to the point that copyright becomes international law. And I honestly don't see that ever happening.
[quote name='panzerfaust']Yeah I read that today -- loss of a wonderful site, and it's going to hurt a lot of legitimate non-pirating users of the web.
Though it should be understood that it's being taken down because of the company's clear lack of effort towards taking down copyright infringing files. The FBI has emails and such between employees to back this claim up. They passed around links, uploaded illegal content of their own, even joked about it. Megaupload was just concerned with making money, and did not put a very determined effort towards taking illegal things down. All of this while pointing at other competitors for doing the same thing.
They dug themselves into this if those emails are indeed real.[/QUOTE]
That's what I figured.
Like I said, it's a huge conflict of interest on a site like that. A page with a link to non-copyrighted material isn't going to generate many hits/ad views as it's mostly just people posting a big file for a colleague or friend etc. Zip file of photos, home video, work documents etc.
Where say a page that's a link to a rip of a popular movie will get posted on pirate forums and get tons of hits as people run to download it.
Pirated material gets the big hits and makes them the big advertising money, and thus they have a financial disincentive to take down pirated material quickly or proactively at all.
Though it should be understood that it's being taken down because of the company's clear lack of effort towards taking down copyright infringing files. The FBI has emails and such between employees to back this claim up. They passed around links, uploaded illegal content of their own, even joked about it. Megaupload was just concerned with making money, and did not put a very determined effort towards taking illegal things down. All of this while pointing at other competitors for doing the same thing.
They dug themselves into this if those emails are indeed real.[/QUOTE]
That's what I figured.
Like I said, it's a huge conflict of interest on a site like that. A page with a link to non-copyrighted material isn't going to generate many hits/ad views as it's mostly just people posting a big file for a colleague or friend etc. Zip file of photos, home video, work documents etc.
Where say a page that's a link to a rip of a popular movie will get posted on pirate forums and get tons of hits as people run to download it.
Pirated material gets the big hits and makes them the big advertising money, and thus they have a financial disincentive to take down pirated material quickly or proactively at all.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Article didn't have much in the way of specifics of the case/charges.
But that's one area I'm very conflicted on when it comes to piracy.
Who shoulder the burden for making sure that sites like that or Youtube etc. don't have copyrighted material illegally posted by users?
Is it up to the sites to police their users proactively, as well as responding promptly to cease and desist requests, since they're making money from ads on the sites?
It it up to copyright holders, publishers etc. to police all these sites and file cease and desist requests? If so what about self publishing authors or musicians? Do we expect them to have the time and resources to police the site and file legal cease and desist orders?
Is it something the federal government needs to do? Have a unit in the FBI or whatever federal law enforcement agency that polices sites and issues cease and desist requests? Should tax payer money go for that? Maybe since it's protecting the copyrights of citizens and US companies?
It's a tricky issue as I don't think sites like this get the protection that p2p software like bittorrent programs get as these are websites hosting the files rather than just software providing peer to peer connections. And they're making money from ads. And having copyrighted material available is going to attract a lot of page views and thus generate more ad revenue--so they have a conflict of interest when it comes to shutting down an upload of a popular movie that's getting them a lot of page views.[/QUOTE]
I think the copyright holders should be responsible for protecting their copyrights. How would youtube or the federal government determine if material is copyrighted, and how would they determine if the copyright holder gave permission for the material to be used?
But that's one area I'm very conflicted on when it comes to piracy.
Who shoulder the burden for making sure that sites like that or Youtube etc. don't have copyrighted material illegally posted by users?
Is it up to the sites to police their users proactively, as well as responding promptly to cease and desist requests, since they're making money from ads on the sites?
It it up to copyright holders, publishers etc. to police all these sites and file cease and desist requests? If so what about self publishing authors or musicians? Do we expect them to have the time and resources to police the site and file legal cease and desist orders?
Is it something the federal government needs to do? Have a unit in the FBI or whatever federal law enforcement agency that polices sites and issues cease and desist requests? Should tax payer money go for that? Maybe since it's protecting the copyrights of citizens and US companies?
It's a tricky issue as I don't think sites like this get the protection that p2p software like bittorrent programs get as these are websites hosting the files rather than just software providing peer to peer connections. And they're making money from ads. And having copyrighted material available is going to attract a lot of page views and thus generate more ad revenue--so they have a conflict of interest when it comes to shutting down an upload of a popular movie that's getting them a lot of page views.[/QUOTE]
I think the copyright holders should be responsible for protecting their copyrights. How would youtube or the federal government determine if material is copyrighted, and how would they determine if the copyright holder gave permission for the material to be used?
[quote name='dmaul1114']Article didn't have much in the way of specifics of the case/charges.
But that's one area I'm very conflicted on when it comes to piracy.
Who shoulder the burden for making sure that sites like that or Youtube etc. don't have copyrighted material illegally posted by users?
Is it up to the sites to police their users proactively, as well as responding promptly to cease and desist requests, since they're making money from ads on the sites?
It it up to copyright holders, publishers etc. to police all these sites and file cease and desist requests? If so what about self publishing authors or musicians? Do we expect them to have the time and resources to police the site and file legal cease and desist orders?
Is it something the federal government needs to do? Have a unit in the FBI or whatever federal law enforcement agency that polices sites and issues cease and desist requests? Should tax payer money go for that? Maybe since it's protecting the copyrights of citizens and US companies?
It's a tricky issue as I don't think sites like this get the protection that p2p software like bittorrent programs get as these are websites hosting the files rather than just software providing peer to peer connections. And they're making money from ads. And having copyrighted material available is going to attract a lot of page views and thus generate more ad revenue--so they have a conflict of interest when it comes to shutting down an upload of a popular movie that's getting them a lot of page views.[/QUOTE]
Under copyright law, the copyright holder has to cite each infringing act and notify the infringing party via a cease and desist letter. They will do this several times to prove exhaustion before the court, then they'll file for an injunction. Whereupon the court order is served and enforced by the proper authorities. In this case it appears the authorities performed an extensive investigation prior to the raid.
The burden to protect ones copyrights lies with the copyright holder. The rationale behind it is that the copyright holder has to be diligent about protecting the copyrighted content. This idea goes back to common law property law priciples. It seems like a heavy burden but it's not asking all that much based on the benefits that are conferred upon them. Plus, no one has comee up with a better system.
With respect to the CEO of Megaupload, the controlling case to this day when it comes to oversight by website owner/operator is still Grokster which followed napster.
But that's one area I'm very conflicted on when it comes to piracy.
Who shoulder the burden for making sure that sites like that or Youtube etc. don't have copyrighted material illegally posted by users?
Is it up to the sites to police their users proactively, as well as responding promptly to cease and desist requests, since they're making money from ads on the sites?
It it up to copyright holders, publishers etc. to police all these sites and file cease and desist requests? If so what about self publishing authors or musicians? Do we expect them to have the time and resources to police the site and file legal cease and desist orders?
Is it something the federal government needs to do? Have a unit in the FBI or whatever federal law enforcement agency that polices sites and issues cease and desist requests? Should tax payer money go for that? Maybe since it's protecting the copyrights of citizens and US companies?
It's a tricky issue as I don't think sites like this get the protection that p2p software like bittorrent programs get as these are websites hosting the files rather than just software providing peer to peer connections. And they're making money from ads. And having copyrighted material available is going to attract a lot of page views and thus generate more ad revenue--so they have a conflict of interest when it comes to shutting down an upload of a popular movie that's getting them a lot of page views.[/QUOTE]
Under copyright law, the copyright holder has to cite each infringing act and notify the infringing party via a cease and desist letter. They will do this several times to prove exhaustion before the court, then they'll file for an injunction. Whereupon the court order is served and enforced by the proper authorities. In this case it appears the authorities performed an extensive investigation prior to the raid.
The burden to protect ones copyrights lies with the copyright holder. The rationale behind it is that the copyright holder has to be diligent about protecting the copyrighted content. This idea goes back to common law property law priciples. It seems like a heavy burden but it's not asking all that much based on the benefits that are conferred upon them. Plus, no one has comee up with a better system.
With respect to the CEO of Megaupload, the controlling case to this day when it comes to oversight by website owner/operator is still Grokster which followed napster.
Last edited by a moderator:
This whole SOPA thing is insane, luckily Obama came out and said no way he would let it past him in the current format. The internet would die....
Our PS3 friends are at it again.
http://gizmodo.com/5877679/anonymous-kills-department-of-justice-site-in-megaupload-revenge-strike
Our PS3 friends are at it again.
http://gizmodo.com/5877679/anonymous-kills-department-of-justice-site-in-megaupload-revenge-strike
[quote name='kill3r7']Under copyright law, the copyright holder has to cite each infringing act and notify the infringing party via a cease and desist letter. They will do this several times to prove exhaustion before the court, then they'll file for an injunction. Whereupon the court order is served and enforced by the proper authorities. In this case it appears the authorities performed an extensive investigation prior to the raid.
The burden to protect ones copyrights lies with the copyright holder. The rationale behind it is that the copyright holder has to be diligent about protecting the copyrighted content. This idea goes back to common law property law priciples. It seems like a heavy burden but it's not asking all that much based on the benefits that are conferred upon them. Plus, no one has comee up with a better system.
[/QUOTE]
That makes sense. Only thing I could think of is maybe there should just be a way for copyright holders to just report violations to some federal copyright law enforcement division rather than having to send a few cease and desist letters and then go to the courts if it doesn't go down.
Just fill out on online form, and the offender gets a cease and desist notice from whatever agency is assigned with that task, with threat of fine if not removed by a certain date etc. That would be a tad less rigamarole for the copyright holder to go through than having to send a few letters and then go to the courts, and probably care more weight and get stuff removed more quickly.
The burden to protect ones copyrights lies with the copyright holder. The rationale behind it is that the copyright holder has to be diligent about protecting the copyrighted content. This idea goes back to common law property law priciples. It seems like a heavy burden but it's not asking all that much based on the benefits that are conferred upon them. Plus, no one has comee up with a better system.
[/QUOTE]
That makes sense. Only thing I could think of is maybe there should just be a way for copyright holders to just report violations to some federal copyright law enforcement division rather than having to send a few cease and desist letters and then go to the courts if it doesn't go down.
Just fill out on online form, and the offender gets a cease and desist notice from whatever agency is assigned with that task, with threat of fine if not removed by a certain date etc. That would be a tad less rigamarole for the copyright holder to go through than having to send a few letters and then go to the courts, and probably care more weight and get stuff removed more quickly.
kainzero
CAGiversary!
taking down fbi.gov? who cares.
http://xkcd.com/932/
MU goes beyond the scope of what people are fighting against with SOPA when the creators of the site pay people to upload infringing content and also do it themselves.
http://xkcd.com/932/
MU goes beyond the scope of what people are fighting against with SOPA when the creators of the site pay people to upload infringing content and also do it themselves.
[quote name='62t']http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-file-sharing-website/#ixzz1jwPPqAJM
megaupload been shut down, executives arrested[/QUOTE]
Dammit, that's why I couldn't download that Android ROM last night.
megaupload been shut down, executives arrested[/QUOTE]
Dammit, that's why I couldn't download that Android ROM last night.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']That makes sense. Only thing I could think of is maybe there should just be a way for copyright holders to just report violations to some federal copyright law enforcement division rather than having to send a few cease and desist letters and then go to the courts if it doesn't go down.
Just fill out on online form, and the offender gets a cease and desist notice from whatever agency is assigned with that task, with threat of fine if not removed by a certain date etc. That would be a tad less rigamarole for the copyright holder to go through than having to send a few letters and then go to the courts, and probably care more weight and get stuff removed more quickly.[/QUOTE]
This is a very confusing age. What I dont get is this, the vast majority of the people who are involved know 100 percent what they are doing is very much illegal. Just like with everything else it takes years for the government to do anything and from the looks of this case they sent many warnings to the site. For the people who were using megaupload in a legit way....sucks to be you but its nothing out of the ordinary. When a business is doing something illegal they shut down everything and try to recoup later for the clients.
So how can people be surprised and/or outraged when they finally get around to doing something and shut it down? I think that the internet has given many people a very false sense of security, because its very easy to hide behind a screen name and be tough.
I think if you are on the opposing side now is the time to do some very real protesting instead of this online teenage kiddy bullshit. I cant help but think we are part of the most cowardly generation that has every existed. I think about the civil rights, I think about what happened in Egypt over the summer, what happens in Iran and Iraq. These were people who were risking very real things, at most their very lives. Then there is this online war where people are protesting from the comfort of their living rooms typing away on computers copy and pasting emails.
Until you put yourself in a real position of consequence the government wont take you serious. I dont think it going to work through generic online media. The "I am protesting by clicking some buttons, take that government! isnt going to work well. You also have all the time in the world to bring down websites for a day yet only like 40% of young adults vote.
I will say this though, I think that there is a very small minority of people who are legit in their protest and are responsible for getting what we have so far. Calling congressman, sending real letters, attending meeting etc etc voting for candidates who are progressive about online issues. I think the vast majority of people are bandwagon shitheads who truly think that not visiting their favorite website for a day somehow helped the caused.
I find myself stuck in the middle, although I oppose things like Sopa I do not want to be the same camp as these tough online rebels.
Just fill out on online form, and the offender gets a cease and desist notice from whatever agency is assigned with that task, with threat of fine if not removed by a certain date etc. That would be a tad less rigamarole for the copyright holder to go through than having to send a few letters and then go to the courts, and probably care more weight and get stuff removed more quickly.[/QUOTE]
This is a very confusing age. What I dont get is this, the vast majority of the people who are involved know 100 percent what they are doing is very much illegal. Just like with everything else it takes years for the government to do anything and from the looks of this case they sent many warnings to the site. For the people who were using megaupload in a legit way....sucks to be you but its nothing out of the ordinary. When a business is doing something illegal they shut down everything and try to recoup later for the clients.
So how can people be surprised and/or outraged when they finally get around to doing something and shut it down? I think that the internet has given many people a very false sense of security, because its very easy to hide behind a screen name and be tough.
I think if you are on the opposing side now is the time to do some very real protesting instead of this online teenage kiddy bullshit. I cant help but think we are part of the most cowardly generation that has every existed. I think about the civil rights, I think about what happened in Egypt over the summer, what happens in Iran and Iraq. These were people who were risking very real things, at most their very lives. Then there is this online war where people are protesting from the comfort of their living rooms typing away on computers copy and pasting emails.
Until you put yourself in a real position of consequence the government wont take you serious. I dont think it going to work through generic online media. The "I am protesting by clicking some buttons, take that government! isnt going to work well. You also have all the time in the world to bring down websites for a day yet only like 40% of young adults vote.
I will say this though, I think that there is a very small minority of people who are legit in their protest and are responsible for getting what we have so far. Calling congressman, sending real letters, attending meeting etc etc voting for candidates who are progressive about online issues. I think the vast majority of people are bandwagon shitheads who truly think that not visiting their favorite website for a day somehow helped the caused.
I find myself stuck in the middle, although I oppose things like Sopa I do not want to be the same camp as these tough online rebels.
[quote name='dmaul1114']That makes sense. Only thing I could think of is maybe there should just be a way for copyright holders to just report violations to some federal copyright law enforcement division rather than having to send a few cease and desist letters and then go to the courts if it doesn't go down.
Just fill out on online form, and the offender gets a cease and desist notice from whatever agency is assigned with that task, with threat of fine if not removed by a certain date etc. That would be a tad less rigamarole for the copyright holder to go through than having to send a few letters and then go to the courts, and probably care more weight and get stuff removed more quickly.[/QUOTE]
What you are suggesting is good except current laws don't allow for it. The problem is two fold. (1) As a copyright holder, unless registered w/uspto, there is only a presumption that your the rightful owner. So, you are going to have to prove ownership. (2) The copyright holder has to notify the infringing party of their behavior. Otherwise how would they know.
My solution to the problem would be to make registration mendatory (so you are presumed to be the rightful owner) and to streamline the cease and desist notices by making them digital.
Just fill out on online form, and the offender gets a cease and desist notice from whatever agency is assigned with that task, with threat of fine if not removed by a certain date etc. That would be a tad less rigamarole for the copyright holder to go through than having to send a few letters and then go to the courts, and probably care more weight and get stuff removed more quickly.[/QUOTE]
What you are suggesting is good except current laws don't allow for it. The problem is two fold. (1) As a copyright holder, unless registered w/uspto, there is only a presumption that your the rightful owner. So, you are going to have to prove ownership. (2) The copyright holder has to notify the infringing party of their behavior. Otherwise how would they know.
My solution to the problem would be to make registration mendatory (so you are presumed to be the rightful owner) and to streamline the cease and desist notices by making them digital.
[quote name='kill3r7']What you are suggesting is good except current laws don't allow for it. The problem is two fold. (1) As a copyright holder, unless registered w/uspto, there is only a presumption that your the rightful owner. So, you are going to have to prove ownership. (2) The copyright holder has to notify the infringing party of their behavior. Otherwise how would they know.
My solution to the problem would be to make registration mendatory (so you are presumed to be the rightful owner) and to streamline the cease and desist notices by making them digital.[/QUOTE]
Agreed with both of those. That's the way to do it. People should all be registered. And then they can file the cease and desist complaints digitally through the system, and then there's a digital record of the letters being sent etc. that can be used in court.
Would be mostly the same as now, but be more streamlined and have a digital record of everything.
My solution to the problem would be to make registration mendatory (so you are presumed to be the rightful owner) and to streamline the cease and desist notices by making them digital.[/QUOTE]
Agreed with both of those. That's the way to do it. People should all be registered. And then they can file the cease and desist complaints digitally through the system, and then there's a digital record of the letters being sent etc. that can be used in court.
Would be mostly the same as now, but be more streamlined and have a digital record of everything.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Can't say I like that. I think copyright should just last for the creators lifetime plus 10 years or so (to encourage late in life work). After that expires it should be permanently in the public domain.[/QUOTE]
We have to conform with WIPO/ WTO/ Berne so lifetime plus 10 is out the question, but public domain has and should always be permanent. I guess they are greasing the wheels for Disney and many other companies whose copyrighted content are about to run out.
We have to conform with WIPO/ WTO/ Berne so lifetime plus 10 is out the question, but public domain has and should always be permanent. I guess they are greasing the wheels for Disney and many other companies whose copyrighted content are about to run out.
Last edited by a moderator:
kainzero
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Soodmeg']Until you put yourself in a real position of consequence the government wont take you serious. I dont think it going to work through generic online media. The "I am protesting by clicking some buttons, take that government! isnt going to work well. You also have all the time in the world to bring down websites for a day yet only like 40% of young adults vote. [/quote]
No, we are being taken seriously.
Signing petitions is like saying "Look. Here are 4 million people that won't vote for your ass in the next election."
We're in a government that gives us the luxury to fight on our computers and where we don't need to self-immolate ourselves as a sacrifice.
We raise awareness so that people realize there is really something at stake here and it will affect people's lives (though herpderpedia does not inspire much confidence, but still...)
No, we are being taken seriously.
Signing petitions is like saying "Look. Here are 4 million people that won't vote for your ass in the next election."
We're in a government that gives us the luxury to fight on our computers and where we don't need to self-immolate ourselves as a sacrifice.
We raise awareness so that people realize there is really something at stake here and it will affect people's lives (though herpderpedia does not inspire much confidence, but still...)
too cool for school, i guess.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
[quote name='kainzero']No, we are being taken seriously.
Signing petitions is like saying "Look. Here are 4 million people that won't vote for your ass in the next election."
We're in a government that gives us the luxury to fight on our computers and where we don't need to self-immolate ourselves as a sacrifice.
We raise awareness so that people realize there is really something at stake here and it will affect people's lives (though herpderpedia does not inspire much confidence, but still...)
too cool for school, i guess.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Seeing has most than half of these people have been proven to never vote in the first place, I doubt they are shaking in their boots from it. Also I feel that most politicians hear big business more than online petitions. Your 4 million online monkeys are worth about .00000001 cents.
I think the battle is on so many different fronts that most people miss the point of it. Its such a cluster
of things happening its hard to grasp what the actually end goal is. For example Dmaul and I were debating against someone, he was taking a stand against things that were solved about 10 years ago. There is no way to satisfy a person who based level cant be changed. What is it they people want to happen? It seems the online world is slowly but surely getting better, yet that doesnt seem to be enough for anyone. There is no DRM, you can access almost any form of media on any device for a fairly low fee, you can rent media for a even cheaper fee.
You have half the people who believe that there is no such thing a piracy and that anything digital should be free. Some believe that piracy is wrong..just not wrong enough to stop pirating everything around them. Others believe that piracy doesnt hurt anyone, other think its a way to take a stand. Very few of these people are doing anything to actually help.
I just feel that for every 1 legit online rebel who really wants to change the online age for the better with fair rules for both sides....there is about thousand who are just bandwagoning it has justification for their pirating actions. I also feel that a lot of the tactics used are extremely childish and misguided. Far too many people in this camp are confusing personal responsibility with what apparently is a god given right to just have whatever they want when they want it. You are not owed Minecraft, Fast Five or Jay Z albums. You dont need them to live...if you dont like them or their business practices than you should protest by not consuming them. This isnt water or food.
For example someone claims that they want to fight against Sonys master hand on the music business....yet if you go into their house they have 20 million songs produced by Sony, they have tons of products made by them and they have a PS3. You cant boycott or oppose a system that you are voluntarily using and consuming. It will always come across as stealing and until you fix that I dont think anyone on the outside looking in will view you as anything other than common criminals.
This is what I mean by cowardice, I feel that most of these people dont have the stones to even give up this content yet they will "protest" it by clicking some buttons. Take a real stand here, I cant take the waffling back and forth.
Its like opposing capital punishment but you get out of the car with Ted Bundy and John Gacy...even though you might be right and have good points its looks really bad.
Signing petitions is like saying "Look. Here are 4 million people that won't vote for your ass in the next election."
We're in a government that gives us the luxury to fight on our computers and where we don't need to self-immolate ourselves as a sacrifice.
We raise awareness so that people realize there is really something at stake here and it will affect people's lives (though herpderpedia does not inspire much confidence, but still...)
too cool for school, i guess.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Seeing has most than half of these people have been proven to never vote in the first place, I doubt they are shaking in their boots from it. Also I feel that most politicians hear big business more than online petitions. Your 4 million online monkeys are worth about .00000001 cents.
I think the battle is on so many different fronts that most people miss the point of it. Its such a cluster
of things happening its hard to grasp what the actually end goal is. For example Dmaul and I were debating against someone, he was taking a stand against things that were solved about 10 years ago. There is no way to satisfy a person who based level cant be changed. What is it they people want to happen? It seems the online world is slowly but surely getting better, yet that doesnt seem to be enough for anyone. There is no DRM, you can access almost any form of media on any device for a fairly low fee, you can rent media for a even cheaper fee. You have half the people who believe that there is no such thing a piracy and that anything digital should be free. Some believe that piracy is wrong..just not wrong enough to stop pirating everything around them. Others believe that piracy doesnt hurt anyone, other think its a way to take a stand. Very few of these people are doing anything to actually help.
I just feel that for every 1 legit online rebel who really wants to change the online age for the better with fair rules for both sides....there is about thousand who are just bandwagoning it has justification for their pirating actions. I also feel that a lot of the tactics used are extremely childish and misguided. Far too many people in this camp are confusing personal responsibility with what apparently is a god given right to just have whatever they want when they want it. You are not owed Minecraft, Fast Five or Jay Z albums. You dont need them to live...if you dont like them or their business practices than you should protest by not consuming them. This isnt water or food.
For example someone claims that they want to fight against Sonys master hand on the music business....yet if you go into their house they have 20 million songs produced by Sony, they have tons of products made by them and they have a PS3. You cant boycott or oppose a system that you are voluntarily using and consuming. It will always come across as stealing and until you fix that I dont think anyone on the outside looking in will view you as anything other than common criminals.
This is what I mean by cowardice, I feel that most of these people dont have the stones to even give up this content yet they will "protest" it by clicking some buttons. Take a real stand here, I cant take the waffling back and forth.
Its like opposing capital punishment but you get out of the car with Ted Bundy and John Gacy...even though you might be right and have good points its looks really bad.
I think the solution to not wanting to associate with the "online rebels" is to write your reps yourself.
I e-mailed letters to mine stating my opposition to SOPA, but also saying that piracy is a huge problem and that I do feel the government needs to play a larger role in helping combat it. They just need to find a way to do so that isn't oppressive, that doesn't strip people's due process rights etc.
I don't want to sign most petitions as they're too broad and a lot involve people who are pirates themselves, hackers who are attacking sites in protests etc. And even those who aren't probably get stereotyped as being that way. Writing your reps a personal letter is a way to get your voice to them (or at least their assistants who read the letters) and make whatever individual point you wish to make.
I e-mailed letters to mine stating my opposition to SOPA, but also saying that piracy is a huge problem and that I do feel the government needs to play a larger role in helping combat it. They just need to find a way to do so that isn't oppressive, that doesn't strip people's due process rights etc.
I don't want to sign most petitions as they're too broad and a lot involve people who are pirates themselves, hackers who are attacking sites in protests etc. And even those who aren't probably get stereotyped as being that way. Writing your reps a personal letter is a way to get your voice to them (or at least their assistants who read the letters) and make whatever individual point you wish to make.
kainzero
CAGiversary!
all that stuff you said... doesn't matter at the moment.
the point is to be unified under one objective: oppose SOPA/PIPA.
this is why the occupy movements failed. too many people splintered off and wanted to have their own reasons instead of banding with the others. no unity, no sacrifice, no goal, no movement.
and that's what online rebels did. they mobilized, did their part, showered their congress reps with mail, raised awareness to people with power. and they accomplished something.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/20/pipa-vote-shelved-harry-reid
when the bill is reworked to a point when it becomes people downloading shit for free with no strings attached vs. people who want to support their artists then that's the time to choose sides.
with that said, i thought shutting down DOJ/FBI websites accomplished nothing, disrupted nothing important and caused no urgency, and was pretty much made by the people you described.
the point is to be unified under one objective: oppose SOPA/PIPA.
this is why the occupy movements failed. too many people splintered off and wanted to have their own reasons instead of banding with the others. no unity, no sacrifice, no goal, no movement.
and that's what online rebels did. they mobilized, did their part, showered their congress reps with mail, raised awareness to people with power. and they accomplished something.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/20/pipa-vote-shelved-harry-reid
when the bill is reworked to a point when it becomes people downloading shit for free with no strings attached vs. people who want to support their artists then that's the time to choose sides.
with that said, i thought shutting down DOJ/FBI websites accomplished nothing, disrupted nothing important and caused no urgency, and was pretty much made by the people you described.
detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/artic...s-hollywood-elites-to-stop-donating-to-obama/
Former Senator Chris Dodd, now head of the MPAA, what a revolving door, is threatening Obama that because SOPA/PIPA was shelved, the Hollywood bigwigs will cease to donate to the reelection campaign. Wow, one of the few times the POTUS decides to grow a pair, and "job creators are on strike!"
Former Senator Chris Dodd, now head of the MPAA, what a revolving door, is threatening Obama that because SOPA/PIPA was shelved, the Hollywood bigwigs will cease to donate to the reelection campaign. Wow, one of the few times the POTUS decides to grow a pair, and "job creators are on strike!"
MadGeniusDude
CAGiversary!
I am against Sopa!!!
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
bread's done