No court order. They also shot down the amendment that proposed to require a court order as well.
American Censorship: Round 2
- Thread starter celebi23
- Start date
- Status
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Goddamn I should have paid more attention to that debate. That was pretty much the only reason I wasn't against this, since I do think there should be a due process for dealing with illegal content distribution.
It was pretty much the last thing they talked about before adjournment.
The opposition stated that it would make the process cost too much and take too much time, so they shouldn't do it.
Jared Polis withdrew the amendment for now so with tweaking he can re-introduce it instead of it becoming fully null though.
ReBurn
Gold Member
I'm looking forward to the day that online piracy ends. Then we can collectively laugh our asses of as the revenue line of these entertainment corporations remains unchanged at best.
Too bad we'll have no personal freedoms left, but maybe Metallica will finally shut up about how much money they lose when people who don't think their music is worth it still don't pay for it.
Too bad we'll have no personal freedoms left, but maybe Metallica will finally shut up about how much money they lose when people who don't think their music is worth it still don't pay for it.
Even streaming is too broad to accurately punish wrongdoers. There are plenty of video game streams that are even supported by the developers but they still aren't official. It'd be a mess if every stream needed to fill out paperwork to protect themselves. If they're streaming PPV type stuff like boxing or UFC then it should be up to whoever is getting ripped off to take legal action, not the govt.
It's been awhile since I've read anything about this so if changes were made that make my post invalid, my bad.
Elfforkusu
Member
No. There's nothing about censoring the internet on a national level that's acceptable. And that is, fundamentally, what this is.
1) breaking DNS is breaking DNS, no matter how narrow the case. There are huge security ramifications, and the internet industry in the US will be set back years as a result. Do we want to do this? Obviously not, but the old assholes in office don't know that they're throwing out of the baby with the bathwater, and the old execs and lobbyists want the internet to not exist.
2) what makes streaming content so special?
Consider the bad light the people already have for people in office. It's quite likely they'll pass this anyway, even if it'll only show the hypocritical nature of 'freedoms' this country lies about.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Because streaming content is the umbrella under which the vast majority of sites that annoy me operate. "Watch free episodes of Parks and Recreation online!"
I think word on the street is yes it has a decent chance of passing. Especially given all of Washington is corrupt as fuck and owned by corporations that want this real bad. Only hope is for someone in power somewhere to see the real nature of the bill and kill it. Judging from majority votes tonight, clearly they all really want this thing passed so they can get millions and get blown by hot chicks paid for by corp.. oh wait i mean serve the American people.
Elfforkusu
Member
Yes, but their war chests are nothing compared to what they're up against.
Habeas corpus was just shot down by our lovely political system, you should be very wary of any bipartisan bill these days.
IsntChrisL
Member
I just saw a commercial on Comedy Central encouraging people to call congress in SUPPORT of the act.... smh...
Elfforkusu
Member
Sorry? Breaking DNS isn't the answer, no matter what the problem is. It will crush legitimate businesses in the US, be circumvented by anyone who cares, and lead to those same sites cropping up overseas instead. Woohoo!
All this with the added bonus of making sure that internet transactions/activity carry a security risk, now and forever.
Saw this as well. COMEDY CENTRAL. fuckers! Its been on all night actually.
It still needs to overcome cloture in the Senate. And even if it does overcome cloture, there will be several amendments to the Senate bill. The Senate bill already differs significantly from the House bill. Then it needs to go to another committee to reconcile the differences, then it goes back to both chambers to be voted on.
So, even though the amendments here are being voted down, they're being voted down by a Republican majority. Things may be different in the Senate bill, which could severely limit its scope (if can even get 60 votes in the Senate).
So, even though the amendments here are being voted down, they're being voted down by a Republican majority. Things may be different in the Senate bill, which could severely limit its scope (if can even get 60 votes in the Senate).
Again, I'm not for this bill. But content and license theft (and yes, I use that word theft correctly) is a legitimate issue that's continually ignored by not only those on this board, but on others.
A lot of this is executives trying to increase their revenues (yes, which would likely happen if all internet piracy ceased to exist tomorrow). But there are legitimate concerns about piracy that are obviously not being addressed, or addressed strictly enough, by current law.
Piracy does cause some problems, but this bill is the equivalent of removing someone's pimple by blasting them in the face with a shotgun.
More than some. And yes, I agree with you on your metaphor. That's why I'm not for it. As I said. But I still think the issue of curbing piracy is not being dealt with nearly enough.
That's interesting, because U.S. copyright law is the strictest and most rightholder-friendly it's ever been by far. But I guess we should take the content industry's word for it:
MPAA head Jack Valenti in the Betamax case that sought to kill the VCR said:
Awesome. And yet I'm still able to find illegal content in a matter of seconds that hasn't been taken down yet by megavideo, rapidshare, or the like. That's a problem. A legitimate problem for those who create content and might be out of a job if enough people don't buy/watch/listen their stuff legally.
Elfforkusu
Member
I'm a software engineer, I know about "license theft". It is a business model problem. You like the internet, right? The freedom to say what you like? To "address" the concerns about piracy is to unplug the internet. There is no other way.
hint: this bill does nothing to solve that "problem".
Why hasn't megavideo taken down hosting illegal content on its website yet. A new episode of Prime Suspect is about to finish airing. I bet I can find it on there about five minutes afterwards. How long is it going to take before it comes down? Will it ever?
Legitimate concerns for those who create content these days. I'm not talking about the use of VCRs back in the 90s. Get over your cute analogy and meet me here, in the present, where we can talk about the legitimate concerns of content creators.
There is no legit talk happening here. This is a nuke about to go off. Save that discussion for later when non-corrupt lawmakers are at the table if they even exist. There is no place for support in this thread for this bill.
Did I say I was for the bill?
No.
Have I ever said I was for the bill?
No.
Have I stated there's a business model that's not sustainable?
Yes.
Have I stated there's a legitimate concern by content creators on the ways in which their products are transmitted over the internet?
Yes.
Why are you talking to me like I just answered the opposite to everything I just stated.
Find the post in this thread where I said I supported this bill. Find it. Find any post where I said I did. Actually, how about you go and accumulate the posts where I said I didn't support this bill.
It doesn't stop the fact that the there is a fundamental problem that must be dealt with in another way.
Elfforkusu
Member
It doesn't matter what "legitimate concerns of content creators" might be. They are irrelevant. Say I would like to be immortal. My eventual death is a legitimate concern. So it is with content creators and piracy in the digital age.
Information, content, are bits. Bits can be copied, from format to format, from computer to computer, from home to home. How is that going to be prevented and stamped out without monitoring every action every person does on a computer? Come up with a solution! I'm all ears.
Wonderful, i think everyone recognizes that issue. This thread is about websites getting nuked from existence cause rich folk feel like it for one reason or another, and how it needs to die dead.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
That's like saying anyone can kill anyone else, so how do we stop murder? We find ways to deincentivize it.
But every anti-piracy argument will be seen that way. I guarantee it. Any attempt, any suggestion that perhaps piracy is something we should worry about will be paraded through the streets as the epitome of evil.
Elfforkusu
Member
e: I should add, per Kinggi's post, that any "how do we stop piracy?" discussion is indeed off topic in this thread.
To phrase it another way: Why is piracy such a "fundamental problem that must be dealt with"?
And, on the basis that it's a horrible terrible thing like murder, we have. With heavy-handed measures like the DMCA. But can you prevent murder?
Because if we don't at least curb pirating, it will be almost impossible for anyone to create any form of audiovisual media. Television, film, etc. And that's a huge concern to those of us who actually want to be content creators.
The only thing you'll have left to pirate is children's television and the church channel. And live events.
Elfforkusu
Member
Nonsense. Musicians still make money, videogames still make money, books still make money, tv shows and films still make money. All of these I can easily get for free.
Only one thing seems to be necessary for piracy to be mitigated:
1) It needs to be easier to pay for and attain a legitimate copy of something than a pirated one.
People who weren't going to buy your stuff still won't, and maybe they'll pirate it instead. But those with the means to buy will buy, if for nothing else than convenience.
It's preempting piracy that is the problem here - in the case of murder, you obviously have due process of law, evidence that needs to be found, etc. Before you commit the murder, there is no violation of privacy or real surveillance in your every day affairs (well, at least it wasn't as widespread before the PATRIOT act).
In the case of piracy, there is no real safe guard for the little guy. If there is no real due process of law before the website gets taken down (when a corporation files something against them) then it's an incredible problem.
Hell, if a person's computer gets sent a virus that makes that person visit infringing websites, why wouldn't his ISP disable his internet connection under the act? The deep packet inspection that results from this act is incredibly shitty and is just a security measure that completely eradicates any sense of 'privacy' you can have when you use the internet. It's controlled by either the government or corporations at that point.
I agree that piracy is a problem, but what the fuck should you do to combat it? This bill is not the answer, and I don't think there is honestly an answer whatsoever.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Well yeah, hence why I was somewhat in support of this when I thought there would be an element of due process to it.
With the business model we have now, that's impossible. I can only speak for television, but most younger, male skewing shows have suffered immensely and have been canceled. In fact, the only show last season that skews male that wasn't canceled was SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL. (To be fair, Smallville skews male and would have been renewed if the producers had wanted it to).
As I stated earlier, even shows that skew more male than most shows aren't doing well. Community, Fringe, Chuck, Terra Nova... yes, they're niche shows, but compared to most shows on television, they skew much more male than normal. And they're pirated to death. And every single one of those shows will probably be canceled at the end of the season. People are rarely pitching content for males on broadcast, especially aimed at younger males. It's not sustainable with the business model we have in place.
And yes, the business model needs to change. But executives are still making money from female skewing shows. Who suffers? Content creators of those shows.
If you want to obtain copyrighted content from an illegitimate source you have always and will always have the ability to do so. That's not an argument, that's a fact. You need to get over your simple-minded thinking, although it's pretty clear from your obstinance that you never will.
Funny you should mention a MegaUpload site, as they were the recent target of what appears to have been the target of a sham DMCA-removal campaign:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...illiam-says-he-didnt-authorize-takedown.shtml
Hey look, they're even able to use the process to muzzle news about the issue:
http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/15/u...-episode-from-youtube-due-to-mega-video-clip/
Clearly the people who perpetrate this kind of garbage on a daily basis need to be deputized to shut down whatever speech they consider "infringement," regardless whether they have any basis for it, something they're quite good it.
It's cute that you've convinced yourself that copyright infringement is the source of all your woes however, and completely blinded yourself to reality in the process, just like so many in the past. If you actually read up on the history of copyright, or tried to develop an even rudimentary understanding of the law and policy at issue you would probably find it funny too.
Elfforkusu
Member
Ok, I'll admit I overreached with TV. HBO is making money (last I checked), sports are still making money, but pretty much everyone else is screwed. Because TV, as a business model, as the content medium it's been for the last 50 years, is a cattle soon to be put out to pasture.
So anyway, TV is dying, but for a different reason than "piracy" (namely, there are so many better things to do with your time, like not watch terrible TV shows and pay $60 a month to do so)
Maybe by people not thinking things through or people who simply like to pirate. I for one support legal means to shut down a website that hosts blatently illegal content that has been verified by officials and such.
I do not support the law actually telling website hosters that you will gain immunity by shutting down websites on impulse because a corporation with power told you to do so. In comcast's case its downright anti-competitive. Game gets fixed.
Elfforkusu
Member
^^^
Agreed on all counts.
Agreed on all counts.
I agree with this, completely.
Nothing I said has necessitated that tone you've taken and I'm confused/frustrated with the ways in which you're belittling me. I have not once stated any support for this bill. I am talking specifically about how the ease of piracy effects those who exist in a business model that they have no power of changing.
I work in television. A lot of times, what we create doesn't work for a myriad of reasons - it's too niche, it sucks, it wasn't marketed correctly, it sucks. But our model is necessitated by immediate results. There is no slow-build - if people are not viewing live, whatever was created will cease to exist in the coming weeks. That puts immense pressure on not only how we market things, but also what we pick up and what shows we prioritize over other shows.
The fact that I can go onto a website now and watch the episode of Prime Suspect that finished airing 18 minutes is a reality that I know exists. But that same link will be working tomorrow. And it'll probably the working the day after. That's a combination of issues, mostly with the business model without immediate content delivery after initial airing and the slowness of sites like MegaUpload to react. But unfortunately, this hurts the people have actually invested years of their lives into a show that might only lasts a few weeks. Piracy is not the sole issue. But it is an undeniable issue that affects content creators more than anyone else. And there the ones without any power to change the ways in which the system works. So why even create television at all?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I totally agree with you. But I have seen, both on here and elsewhere, the sentiment that allowing any kind of legal control over internet content/distribution is "censorship"
HBO has a business model that's different than most other television networks and isn't comparable to anything ad supported that requires live viewing. Sports and other live programs are unique because there's a huge benefit to watching them live versus later.
Piracy is a huge concern for television. Not just broadcast, but also cable options (which, on the whole, provide a better product). It's not the sole concern - the biggest issue with flailing ratings or stunted growth in cable is poor content and an increased amount of competition. But piracy is still a huge issue with the Nielsen model is being used. And unfortunately, no one has thought of a better model. Or can think of one.
This bill is a bad bill. But too many people (not necessarily on GAF, but on other places) are using it as a soapbox against any control over distribution of illegal content. And that's a huge issue with the current culture of the internet.
Elfforkusu
Member
I think piracy is an easy scapegoat. The real problem is that the ad model relies on lots of eyes seeing your commercials. Well,
1) cable is expensive. Less people are paying, less people are watching.
2) Tivo/DVRs + piracy. From the perspective of people seeing ads, they might as well be one and the same. Good luck getting people to give up their DVRs.
That leaves in-show advertising, which only drives more people away. TV as it exists today is simply screwed, I'm afraid.
Incidentally, both #1 and #2 are somewhat solved by legitimate online streaming. But that tramples on the (failing) existing business model, so...
And that's not a problem I can fix. Nor it is a problem that will necessarily affect the salaries of those executives in the media conglomerates. Instead, it affects the people who create the content. That's my concern.
Also, commercial viewing during DVRs is oddly higher than most might think. A lot more money than you would intuitively except is made on C3 (live viewing + commercials viewed by DVRing through the first three days after initial air). Piracy isn't just a scapegoat, it's a legitimate concern for those whose product relies on ad views. I'll be the first to admit there's a million things done wrong within the television industry, even within the scope of the current business model (which, as I said before, is unsustainable). All of those issues taken into consideration, piracy is still a concern that, unfortunately, adversely affects a disproportionate amount of folks who create content aimed at young males. And it sucks.
Online streaming is an advertiser/Nielsen problem. Advertisers will only advertise having a 3rd party validate demographic information. Creating that software and a sustainable model going forward has bene slow on the uptake. Change is not our strong suit.
EDIT: One of my personal fears is the growing sense that there is a right to this content. I believe one person on reddit said it was akin to mercantilism and monopolism. The attitude that "I have a right to this!" that's been imbedded in many people within my generation scares me, a lot.
And then called me a pedophile. I don't know why... I'm not.
rohlfinator
Member
Is there video for this debate online somewhere? I missed it today and kinda want to see what happened.
Reading the thread, it sounds like it was pretty depressing though.
Reading the thread, it sounds like it was pretty depressing though.
I don't get this. While I don't think anyone has an immediate right to new content, the whole point of copyright is to incentivize making content for the eventual addition to the public domain. With copyright law (and corporate personhood) the way it is now, copyright has become the antithesis of the purpose it was intended for; it's essentially forever instead of the original 14 to 28 years. If we, as society, don't benefit from you making creative works then what reason do we have to protect those creative works?
Is there video for this debate online somewhere? I missed it today and kinda want to see what happened.
Reading the thread, it sounds like it was pretty depressing though.
Try this link tomorrow. I think they are resuming. Its annoying though. Every now and then there is some logic but it gets shot down.
http://www.keepthewebopen.com/sopa
My issue is that the internet and free access to material has created a mindset that is there is an immediate right to obtaining this material... which they don't have an immediate right to. I'm confused what this has to do with public domain law? My issue is the "mine!" mentality that's equality copyright law with entertainment-based materials with a warped view of mercantilism.
Maybe they should rename it to something like Stop Overreaching, Please America. 
I don't see how that's scary at all if you mean the consumer. If you buy something, it should be yours. It's your property. Obviously the content is copyrighted by someone somewhere, but esoteric laws don't work to prevent criminality.
In any case . . .
So who's really clamoring, It's mine!
Edit: It seems I had this page open too long and didn't see this reply.
There's a demand for content, but sometimes no legal way to obtain it. I don't know what else to say.
Do you mean the holder or the consumer?
I don't see how that's scary at all if you mean the consumer. If you buy something, it should be yours. It's your property. Obviously the content is copyrighted by someone somewhere, but esoteric laws don't work to prevent criminality.
In any case . . .
Copyrights should expire, but again, it's companies like Disney that want to keep making money and prolong/sustain these laws. They have to accept that they create content for people, not for themselves.
So who's really clamoring, It's mine!
Edit: It seems I had this page open too long and didn't see this reply.
So you mean pirates have that mentality? I don't think you can blame people for wanting content, and I don't think they claim ownership of it either.
There's a demand for content, but sometimes no legal way to obtain it. I don't know what else to say.
- Status