The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Internet Blacklist
DrBoom
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I'm 27 years old. The freedom to share information has always been available to me ever since I got onto my first computer. Can some of it be considered stealing? Yes. Everyone has downloaded a movie or a song before. Not to say it's right. But let the companies themselves handle the situation. Not the Government.
This is a big part of my generation, now they want to take it away.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-segal/stop-the-internet-blackli_b_739836.html
This is a big part of my generation, now they want to take it away.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-segal/stop-the-internet-blackli_b_739836.html
DrBoom on
0
Posts
This is what Congress has come up with. "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" Or COICA. What this does is creates two different list.
List One is a "required to ban" list. If your site is on this list, all internet providers HAVE to block it. All your happy little torrent sites go bye-bye with this one.
List two is more of a "Suggest to block" list. This one is subject to some corruption. The exec branch gets to unilaterally "suggest" which sites to block. This means that Entertainment companies can bribe certain officials to suggest particular sites to be put on this list. Now they don't say this out right obviously. But the fact remains that it will happen.
But that's it in a nutshell. The link above has more on it, so does Google.
What else comes even remotely close?
yeah I dunno if people have noticed but a lot of people are a bit short on cash nowadays.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/31257
Censorship. Suppose wikileaks type websites would find themselves on one of the lists? (Yes.)
Are you actually arguing for the right to steal? If someone is involved in the theft of a movie or music online, if it's either downloading it and sharing it, buying it and allowing others to get it for free, or just simply finding free streaming sites that aren't certified or whatever to show the movies. Those are exactly the situations that the government should step in on. The laws are made by the government and enforced by the government, not the companies.
This is something that honestly should have been done a long time ago. At this point this law looks like it needs a lot of work. The attempt to come up with ways to stop pirating is a good attempt, but one must make sure it won't hurt people who are honest law abiding users of the Internet. This as is could do good but if their example of Youtube being put on either list also shows that it really is not what they need.
In the entertainment industry? Yeah, it pretty much is.
See: disney and copyright
what generally happens is that the original version is widely recognized even by congress as being ridiculous, and it winds up dying in committee
and then bunches of the less-so-but-still-odious provisions wind up in followup legislation that is not quite as bad
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
It's more elegant to have compliance with a list of suggestions as voluntary. ISPs will be coerced^W glad to comply as they have a duty to protect the customers.
MPAA and RIAA are already on record going "Hey, you should make this blacklist that lets you kill WikiLeaks. Oh, and let us sneak in The Pirate Bay and some other stuff on it."
edit: oh, and of course ye olde child porn block list argument. Yeah, that totally works. I'll write a little post about exactly how it totally works later, got to run now.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Not only are both avenues by themselves useless (since you can still get to a site by IP) it sets a pretty horrifying precedent.
or like the third party antispamming groups it'd end up more evil than the offenders
and this: "This is something that honestly should have been done a long time ago."? This is horryfying. It's the worse. You have no fucking idea what it's like to live under censorship. I have. Nothing, ever, in any circunstances, justify censorship.
oh, complete technical incompetence, gotcha.
Not sure how I feel about this law, though.
Rigorous Scholarship
No. The government's job in face of a widespread phenomenon and changing technological limitations is to re-evaluate current laws in the best interest of society as a whole, not to protect any existing status quo without questioning the situation or future implications.
Property laws, sure.
No, it isn't. When said property is an abstract concept that has been twisted beyond recognition since the moment of its creation, a legitimate government action would be, as said above, reevaluation of the concept and implementing the necessary changes.
I'd never call anybody who engages into digital copyright infringement a criminal and I honestly don't care much what the letter of the law says.
Edit: Also, I've scratched my itch and I'd do my best not to reply on the tangent anymore as this thread is probably better served if we concentrate on the concept of internet filtering in the US.
I'm not even going to try and agrue that this wouldn't be used and abused for censorship, I understand that much about people. Maybe I'm still too naive and optimistic, but I at least hope the original intent was to simply stop piracy, and, like most attempts before it, it really misses what is considered a good idea.
What I was referencing, and obviously I didn't make it as clear as I had hoped, was the intent to push hard against piracy on the Internet, not the bill specifically. However, with how lacking any base for law is on the Internet, from my understanding, any real push to get cyber laws in place are going to end badly in the foreseeable future. We're trying to almost start from scratch yet we want to take too big of leaps without understanding just how much these laws will affect us in the long run. There is also the problem of the fact that the Internet is international, and no country wants another country policing their Internet.
I personally feel that any place, be it physical or website, with the main intent and practice of harboring and trafficking pirated goods should be shut down. Theft = wrong, with exceptions. An exception would obviously be stealing something to live, stealing something that could be harmful to others so that it won't be harmful to others, and so forth. I under no realistic circumstances see the theft of music, movies, video games, books, etc. to fall under these criteria. This is much easier to handle with a physical scenario, as it is very hard to arrest people for illegally copy movies and then move on to closing down the video rental store down the street because the let one person rent a movie for free. On the Internet, I see that sort of scenario becoming much easier.
Personally, I don't see shutting down/blocking a site because they violate US law to be the same as censorship. I would consider it along the lines of the Internet equivalent of jail time. But I do understand that there is a fine line (if there is a line) between punishing sites who perform illegal activies and mandating what we can/can't see/do/say on the Internet. it's a very tough and touchy scenario that I would have no idea how to reasonably resolve with both preserving American freedoms as well as upholding American laws. And at this point I don't think there is a realistic solution to that.
Then there is the whole part where many people (me too from my feeble understanding of them) feel that copyright/trademark/etc. laws need to be reworked anyway. If it were possible for us to get laws worked out in a reasonable time I think now would be a good time to rework them so that we can incorporate policies w/ the Internet as well.
Is it okay if we agree that no matter the intent, the end result is a cluster fuck?
Your own ignorance isn't particularly relevant. If you would call someone who stole a physical CD a thief, than you have to logically conclude that someone who illegally downloaded that music is also a thief.
Except, the basis for the proposed filtering here revolves around intellectual property rights.
I don't have a problem with banning websites that exist for the purpose of facilitating the theft of intellectual property. The government can legally shut down other websites that exist to facilitate crimes such as money laundering and terrorism.
Rigorous Scholarship
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Bullshit. Intellectual property is an intangible asset by definition, how is that not abstract enough for you when you even say it yourself?
Aaand? Why is "the concept has existed for a long time" an argument against debating its current status or necessity?
Is that an ad hom in your pocket or are you just happy to see me? The "victims" of your two acts are not the same and the acts are not even remotely analogous. Nobody could ever conclude what you expect from this example because of the small tangible property theft vs intangible property copying. The law admits it, by using different terms, you know, copyright infringement opposed to theft.
And I'd rather we have more and more such websites until actual discussion about copyright reform can be started.
Edit: Typos, a whole ton.
It's pretty impossible to implement. So, take solice in that. Mainly because the US isn't on it's own completely segregated network like China.
That's the only way it would work. If the user has an IP you can connect to them in any means, DNS isn't going to stop shit. People will just write a patch around it.
From what I can understand, that's all their proposing is a DNS blacklist.
What about websites that engage in illegally threatening language, such as threats against the President?
Just because an action takes place on the interwebs doesn't mean it's not a crime.
Rigorous Scholarship
An Artist records a song, which is then edited and packaged with other songs into an album. There is work and money put into this effort. Then these are digitally sold usually through a place such as Amazon or iTunes. By illegally downloading it you are neither costing the sellers nor the creators of the physical CD money like you would a physical CD (the only real difference I can see), but either way you are taking something with a value attached to it for nothing thus denying the creator of said product money.
One thing that is for certain is the Internet age has played havoc on ethics and morals. I honestly cannot understand how someone could say theft of a CD is wrong but illegally downloading it is not.
oh and also
Obligatory
And I'd use "is evolving", instead of played havoc.
Edit: Also, the video is good.
The physical cost of the CD to the manufacturer is probably less than $1. The value of the CD, on the other hand, is quite a bit higher because it contains intellectual property that people have an interest in.
Yeah, if you illegally download something, you haven't actually taken something from the owner of the IP. But you have stolen the value of the song or movie.
Put another way, you have no right to possess someone else's IP, unless you're willing to pay them the value of what they think that IP is worth. It's irrelevant whether that IP is burned onto some storage medium or not.
Websites that exist to facilitate the illegal downloading of IP are no different than some guy selling stolen CD's out of his trunk.
Rigorous Scholarship