Comment

Comment by AlexKilledTheBeast on January 20, 2012 at 2:07pm

mitya: how many moderators would be necessary to ban every copyrighted video on youtube?

Wikipedia would go to shit as well, since anyone can edit it and write copyrighted stuff on it.

Tumblr as well, if you copy an article from another website or a magazine they shut down Tumblr, not just your personal blog.

Reddit, same thing. DeviantArt, same thing. I Power, same thing, etc.

You don't see cd's being removed from stores because they allow copyright infringement, I could make a copy of a book with a regular printer, still no one complains that printers allow copyright infringement.

It is necessary to have laws to prevent violation of intellectual property but this bill is written in a very ambiguous way and can be easily exploited.

I hope I could help you understand why we don't like this bill and why it is dangerous.

Comment by Michael Marcus on January 18, 2012 at 9:52pm

The worst part of this legislation is that an *alleged* copyright-holder can contact your ISP, claim that something on your website is "in violation of their copyright" and have you shut down without so much as a COURT ORDER, let alone a trial.  Everything is set up to "shoot first, ask questions later."  Anybody who samples or does a mash-up?  SHUT DOWN.  Anybody that uses a clip of a movie?  SHUT DOWN.  Showing off something cool you did in a video game?  SHUT DOWN.  For that matter, someone could just *claim* something like one of my comic books violates a *non-existent* copyright by someone else--there's NO INVESTIGATION INVOLVED.  It's just another weapon against personal expression.

Comment by Fien on January 18, 2012 at 6:52pm

mitya: your comparison doesn't make much sense. Yes, moderators can already do that... because they moderate THEIR site. If you created a website, it's your right to do with it what you like as long as it does not violate any law (in case you were planning to answer 'child pornography', yes that is a violation of the law :p). Basically, SOPA and PIPA plan to make 'we want to be able to ban whatever we like' into a law. Anyway, I'm pretty much done discussing this. No hard feelings, I hope, but you seem to have your mind made up, and I'd rather discuss it with openminded people who seek to understand or debate.

Comment by Reese Leysen on January 18, 2012 at 6:51pm

Mitya thinks it's fine that the US government will be able to block and financially shut down entire businesses, communities and any sort of website even if they are run outside the US, without any sort of legal process or trial. He thinks it "is funny since moderators are already everywhere on the internet". Ok. Thanks for your opinion, Mitya. Let's move on.

Comment by Kokomo on January 18, 2012 at 6:46pm

1984? No more like 2012! I would much rather be censored by an individual moderators then be censored by government or corporations, because they lack emotion. Only corporation will take down your birthday video because it had the happy birthday song. It would be end of free speech on the internet.  Maybe 2012 is the end of the world. What a great start to the new year.

Comment by mitya on January 18, 2012 at 6:34pm

but moderators and admins already do that to there own willing

so what makes it worse if the government does it eh?

itll basically be the us government acting like moderators which is funny since moderators are already everwhere on the internet doing good or bad jobs. if they delete sites then thats fine i mean they are the government

Comment by Fien on January 18, 2012 at 6:27pm

Mitya, this isn't about a difference of opinion, if you had said you supported SOPA and had made clear you knew what it entailed, I don't think Reese or I would be discussing it much further with you. You can have a different opinion. But repeating your claim that we are 'overexaggerating' clearly proves you don't know (and are thus not well informed) of what the consequences of this bill might be. There is a reason why most people are outraged, and it isn't because they want to be able to use copyrighted images. It is because this bill is quite frankly an guise to censor whatever the government and big corporations want without a legal process or trial.

Comment by Reese Leysen on January 18, 2012 at 6:13pm

We're not 'putting too much emphasis'. The whole reason why the entire Internet is outraged and protesting against this bill today is exactly because it authorizes the shutting down of websites through blocking and cutting financial resources without actual legal process or trial.

Child pornography is also completely and utterly unrelated. It's clear you're thoroughly uninformed and don't wish to be so that settles the discussion nicely.

Comment by mitya on January 18, 2012 at 5:55pm

well reese i hvent been o this site long enough to say that i would care if it was taken down although i do think your maybe all putting too much emphasis. although tbh it should still be the duty of the site owner and his moderators to moderate the site

if someone would post child pornography on here it is your duty to get rid of it

Comment by Reese Leysen on January 18, 2012 at 5:31pm

Mitya, do you think I Power (for example) should be taken down when a user manages to slip in a copyrighted image somewhere that the moderators didn't see? Because this law says ISP's have to block the site in that case. Oh and Paypal and other payment processors have to stop all funding to the site. Also, this would all happen without legal process or trial. I'm with you against copyright infringement but the approach SOPA & PIPA take is frankly retarded and it is no surprise that the bill has only gained traction due to millions of dollars of lobbying.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page