Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting July!

[Duality Jack]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Wait did someone bring cub porn into this again?

 

[Mircea]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Wait did someone bring cub porn into this again?

To be honest, given how I feel like getting my mind off this internet censorship thing right now, I'm surprisingly not pissed at seeing this thread taken off-topic with that pointless debate again. Rather watch people who can't censor the whole internet argue than people who can, heh.

 

[AshleyAshes]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Why is 'censorship' in the title to this thread? I don't see any acts of censorship in this at all...

 

[Randy-Darkshade]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

That's something I never fully agreed with, but partly. It's only theft as we know it when you take something from someone to claim it for yourself. In the process, you obtain the object, while the other side loses it. And usually, the other side losing the stolen item is what makes it a crime. In this case it's copying; You obtain the object, but the other side doesn't lose it. On the contrary, they willingly offer it. It's still wrong as a moral, but way less dramatic.

It doesn't matter if it's willingly offered or not, it doesn't give people the right to obtain it for free illegally.

Personally, if people who hotwired and stole cars would leave a copy of the car behind as they escape with it, I would see car theft as a less tragic thing too.

Flawed logic. If you had a copy of the car you want to steal why the fuck would you steal the car you already have a copy of? That wouldn't make sense. Correction, doesn't make sense.

Since you are not taking it away from the owner... and if you had to buy the car instead of stealing it in order to get it, you might have decided to not buy it at all. Therefore there's no actual proof that someone lost anything (including money) unless you tap into the person's head to know if he would have bought it from the car dealer were he not able to take a copy.

What is the point in buying a product if you already obtained it for free? duh.

Considering (for the sake of debate) that it was possible for a song to fit inside a 10 bits file. You could write 10 numbers consisting of 0 or 1 on a piece of paper, and hand it to your classmate at school. Then when he gets home, he opens notepad, writes the 0's and 1's, saves it as an mp3 file and opens the file as a song, and listens to it. Where exactly was the criminal act committed, and what was the "murder weapon"? Was writing a combination of numbers and giving it to your friend the actual crime? Can any exact consequences be known based on the act? Also, how can you prevent piracy then... by making it illegal to write on paper? Again, this is just me diving foolishly deep into the technical debate, but I hope you see my point.

He copied the code and gave it to a friend for free. He COPIED the code. That is where the piracy act takes place, he copied the code and then distributed it. Which is what pirating is. People put up copies of songs, movies, software and distribute it freely which is against copyright. Years ago people did it with VHS tapes and sold them, then with DVD's and sold those. The difference online is that money doesn't usually exchange hands as it's free downloads.

That's what companies and anti-piracy people don't accept. They call it outright theft, but don't realize that it's a gray area with many ifs and buts the moment we talk about copying. Again, not to say it's fully ok... in my view it's a gray area both legally and morally.

It may not be theft but it does violate copyright laws because it's being redistributed illegally. Music, movies and even software will have written somewhere that it is for HOME use only and redistribution is illegal. This is what is trying to be stopped.

So long as they don;t try to stop us like, transferring music from computer to an MP3 player or other device I don;t care.

 

[Duality Jack]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Why is 'censorship' in the title to this thread? I don't see any acts of censorship in this at all...

Assumptions people would abuse the power bla bla without understanding the scandals that would happen if someone did.


Also kids, fucking baby animals is wrong. don't fap to it!

 

[Randy-Darkshade]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Surprised I haven't seen this in any news lately.



Dude... It's art. Of fictional creatures. I don't particularly enjoy it, but all it is is art. It isn't hurting anybody. Offend, maybe, but hurt? No.

Doesn't matter anyway, it's illegal in my country and illegal where the FA sites are hence why FA was forced to remove it. So Mircea's sig is kinda pointless because FA CAN'T reinstate it without breaking the law.

 

[Duality Jack]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Doesn't matter anyway, it's illegal in my country and illegal where the FA sites are hence why FA was forced to remove it. So Mircea's sig is kinda pointless because FA CAN'T reinstate it without breaking the law.

Not to mention the trend of "sexual escalation" which has been proven to be a problem. Oddly enough "slippery slope" scenarios does apply to paedophilic materials. (one of those rare cases)

 

[Aden]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Make a new thread if you really want to debate cub porn again, guys

Ahh yes but pirating is a form of theft is it not? just like shoplifting is.

Nope. It's copyright infringement.

It's true. I pirate the crap out of a lot of media but I make no moral justification for it. It's free and it's a small offence against civil law, not even criminal. So I download movies and TV shows.

Here's what I've gathered about most pirates: they don't have the means and/or the will to acquire the content legally, even if pirating ceased to exist. Without pirating, the company receives no money and the pirate does not see the media. With pirating, the company receives no money and the pirate does see the media. It's obvious what the pirate chooses.

 

[AshleyAshes]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Here's what I've gathered about most pirates: they don't have the means and/or the will to acquire the content legally, even if pirating ceased to exist. Without pirating, the company receives no money and the pirate does not see the media. With pirating, the company receives no money and the pirate does see the media. It's obvious what the pirate chooses.

Well, not entirely. I think that there are people who get everything for free who would buy SOME stuff but don't cause they can get it for free. At the same time I'll download a lot that I wouldn't buy if piracy just didn't exist. When something costs you only bandwidth, it's easy to go 'Oh, I need this, and this, and ooo DVD rips of every show I loved when I was a kid. The Real Ghostbusters complete DVDrip torrent, here I come! ' So I think piracy does lead to lost sales, but not even close to a 1:1 ratio for every pirated copy.

 

[Mircea]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Why is 'censorship' in the title to this thread? I don't see any acts of censorship in this at all...

It's a plan to cut users off the internet, and possibly shut down websites. Though now that you mention it, maybe censorship isn't the best word. I tend to use that for everything related to attacking the internet.

 

[Ikrit]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

cub porn

it's how pedos try to bend child porn laws

 

[Term_the_Schmuck]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

I found your post interesting and wanted to give a reply of my own. First of all, although I believe in the idea that everything should be ok to share on the internet, I like it when people use common sense and limit. If a person who deserves money for what they do loses money due to something being copied, it's a case where I expect users to take notice and not be completely ignorant. If they still share, at least link to the artist's page and maybe even encourage donating to them instead. Most of the torrents I find ask people to buy the movie / album after they torrent it. Otherwise, like for anyone who does any work, I would never say you don't deserve money for what you do... that would be wrong. In my case I'm an open-source game developer, which means I spend my time working for free to create nice things for others from "my mom's basement" (I'm 23 and don't have a job yet, student here).

Then again the the producers of said content didn't put out their movie/album/game for you for free so that after you've viewed said content that you could make the decision of whether it was worth your money. This isn't a matter of donating, it's basic commerce. You want a luxury item, you pay for it. The only time I've ever seen a major producer release content for free while saying "pay if you want" is Radiohead, but that was a decision they made themselves with a self-released album that had no other party involved but themselves who would lose out, though the licensing of the music is still handled by Warner Chappell Music Publishing. Free-to-play models notwithstanding.

This goes back to the same mentality I've been talking about which holds that "I deserve every piece of content in the world and if I feel like it I'll give them my money" which is absolutely ridiculous.

But at the same time, those of us who use the internet in a legit way don't deserve such harassment. And yes, harassment is the right word for some of us. I remember last winter after the SOPA scandal began... I was checking and refreshing posts and news articles, and my stomach was hurting wondering "what will happen to all those websites soon?". Bluntly, I don't believe I did anything wrong to deserve this. They don't understand that the internet isn't some place one polices like their back yard... some have their lives on it. So if they wish to outright destroy us, then let hell reign on both sides if so be it.

What websites? Instead of wondering maybe you should have read into what would have actually happened. As we've seen, likely MegaUpload was going to get shutdown with the legislation, and rightfully so. Nothing would happen to You Tube because it's actively doing everything in it's power to prevent people from making money by publishing copyrighted content that doesn't belong to them. Sites like Vimeo are doing the same thing. As for the "people whose lives are on the internet" I think they have more things to worry about than just being monitored for piracy. Like leaving mom's basement. :V

No one's destroying anyone and you certainly seem to have these delusions of grandeur about the entire thing. Please, snap back to reality.

In other words, I try not to be closed minded on the matter of anti-piracy. Yeah sure... I download my favorite artist's albums and some 90's anime from Piratebay... and don't believe that makes me a monster. But if they wish to entirely take away what's ours (using the internet in a legit way) then we won't forgive and stand for it. If companies are upset with this, they must think of non-harmful and creative ways to discourage or stop it. DRM for instance is a thing that disgusts me... but it's something people have the right to use if they wish to slow down this process (it cannot be stopped because data can be copied, it's how things are with computers). This isn't fully to defend sharing either... the reason I'm upset is that I'm worried half of the internet might be gone because of censorship being abused the second it's implemented, and knowing the internet will no longer be free.

The internet already isn't "free" as can clearly be seen any time you look at the news and you see a child pornography ring get busted up, or even now with how the UK is actively pursuing legal action against people who use racially charged derogatory words on Twitter. The Internet believe it or not isn't the Wild West. There are rules and laws which govern the activities therein. Sharing content through piracy isn't using the internet in a "legit way" just as going to a movie theater, taping the movie with my camcorder and distributing physical copies isn't using my camera and computer in a "legit way". Let me reitterate that companies are more concerned with people who sell their content or mass distribute it for free without their consent then the dude making stupid You Tube videos of My Little Pony, so long as that dude isn't enabling ads.

One more thing: If you work in the entertainment industry, and are among the people who understand this (that despite the pro / anti piracy side doing this to the internet is unacceptable), please try to explain it to other people who work there and maybe convince them to air something about this. Any help is needed to save the internet. Which is not all about piracy and people copying stuff, except a small part of it. Please help fight on this side.

I'm not fighting for shit. You want content on this? Make it. Because unless you're paying me I'm not going to produce anything about this topic, nor am I going to bother other people about it when I have my own responsibilities in my numerous jobs. I wake my ass up 5 days a week before 6 AM to head to work and usually don't make it back home till after 7 PM or later depending on if I have another gig at night. I got more shit on my plate than you could shake a stick at, the last thing I need to do is start making political speeches to people at the office about piracy legislation.

No, I'm saying that people are NOT companies and companies are NOT people therefore under the law you should not treat them the same way.

Do companies have heartbeats? Can they sexually reproduce? No, they can not therefore people are not the same thing as people.
Can you legally sell people for money in the usa? No, you can not therefore people are not the same thing as companies.

According to the US Supreme Court companies share similar rights to the American people. Said companies always maintained their rights to copyrights and licensing. Assuming the company can provide facts to back up a number say in the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damages caused by someone, who are you to tell them they have no right to seek that money?

I don't know where your questions are coming from in the above quote, because many of them have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. This is all basic intellectual property law which has existed in this country since its formation. Copyright holders have rights, CF, including the corporations who own their own, just as artists here have their rights for the work they produce. If the company can reasonable prove whatever amount they're seeking in a case is backed up by facts as opposed to speculation, then they absolutely should be entitled to seek that money, just as you or I would be if a company took something we created and started mass distributing it without compensating us fairly. This isn't a childish "fuck the corporations" thing, CF. This is intellectual property rights.

 

[CannonFodder]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

According to the US Supreme Court companies share similar rights to the American people. Said companies always maintained their rights to copyrights and licensing. Assuming the company can provide facts to back up a number say in the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damages caused by someone, who are you to tell them they have no right to seek that money?

I don't know where your questions are coming from in the above quote, because many of them have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. This is all basic intellectual property law which has existed in this country since its formation. Copyright holders have rights, CF, including the corporations who own their own, just as artists here have their rights for the work they produce. If the company can reasonable prove whatever amount they're seeking in a case is backed up by facts as opposed to speculation, then they absolutely should be entitled to seek that money, just as you or I would be if a company took something we created and started mass distributing it without compensating us fairly. This isn't a childish "fuck the corporations" thing, CF. This is intellectual property rights.

Stop trying to bring rights and morality into this. Point to me one single post on here where I have argued about the morality or ethics or rights?

Under the law companies and people may share similar rights, but the whole notion that companies ARE people is just outright fucking stupid.

All I am saying is that companies are NOT people are therefore should not be treated the same, while yes the supreme court has ruled companies share similar rights the two are vastly different and therefore should not be treated the same under the law.

Human beings-
Tangible
animate
organic organism
sapient
has emotions
able to reproduce sexually
has a heartbeat
has internal organs

companies-
Intangible and is a conglomerate of means of production and sales through a unified organization(meaning the factory and means of production are tangible, however companies in of themselves are not)
innanimate
non-organic
not sapient
does not have emotions
unable to reproduce sexually
does not have a heartbeat
does not have internal organs


The irony of how you keep saying "have you even read what I'm saying" is that yes I do in fact keep reading what you are posting, BUT all I am arguing about is that law aspect of copyright infringement and not the morality or such and you keep responding to me as if I was touting forth my moral views on the subject on a billboard.

Before you respond, do you even know whether or not I think copyright infringement is okay or not okay morally?


But back on to the second part, yes copyright holders do hold the intellectual property. However there is a massive difference between mass distribution of copyrighted works for profit and some joe downloading a movie.

 

[Term_the_Schmuck]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

The irony of how you keep saying "have you even read what I'm saying" is that yes I do in fact keep reading what you are posting, BUT all I am arguing about is that law aspect of copyright infringement and not the morality or such and you keep responding to me as if I was touting forth my moral views on the subject on a billboard.

Before you respond, do you even know whether or not I think copyright infringement is okay or not okay morally?

But back on to the second part, yes copyright holders do hold the intellectual property. However there is a massive difference between mass distribution of copyrighted works for profit and some joe downloading a movie.

Well you pretty much are touting your morals here. Because why else are you constantly trying to draw the comparisons between a biological living thing and a business establishment? Should I start explaining how businesses work by comparing different departments to the human body to appease you?

Your entire argument seems to boil down to is the idea of "CORPORATIONS HAVE LOTS OF MONEY SO THEY SHOULDN'T GET TO SUE ANYBODY" which is a bullshit notion that a business should just allow itself to be wronged or that a court should take their case less seriously for the sole reason that they're a business. That suddenly, the copyright holder's rights are somehow inversely proportional to how much money that company is making on its IP because they're able to monetize it and mass produce it themselves. Your logic would dictate that someone robbing a Walmart is somehow less serious than someone robbing a mom and pop store because the Walmart could "handle the losses".

Sure, there's a difference between the dude who's downloading movies for personal use and the guy who's mass distributing pirated copies. Problem is on sharing services like Limewire was and with most torrent communities, the stuff you download also gets seeded to other people. You become part of the distribution ring, which ropes you into getting in more trouble than simply downloading a movie off the internet. So no, while that guy may not be a Kim DotCom-type of person, he's still liable for the distribution of pirated content.

 

[AshleyAshes]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Under the law companies and people may share similar rights, but the whole notion that companies ARE people is just outright fucking stupid.

CannonFodder, what if corporations were not legal persons? How would you sign a contract with that corporation? You couldn't. You could maybe sign a contract with an individual at the corporation, but what if he quits? Do you stop having your cable TV contract cause Steve, who you signed the contract with, left for a new job in Florida? Or maybe Steve wouldn't be allowed to leave the company, due to the massive responsibility placed on him? That doesn't work.

How would we hold corporations legally responsible for their actions or inactions if they wern't 'persons'? We couldn't fine British Petrolium for billions if it wasn't a person. And Steve? Steve at BP doesn't have billions.

Really, I don't you comprehend (And maybe you arn't capable of comprehending) just how important it is to basic buisness for corporations to exist if they were not legally seen as persons.

And let's make this clear, I don't just mean 'the big evil megacorporations from Blade Runner', even little Mom & Pop stores are incorporated for the same reasons.

You're just ignorant to basic necessary functions of law and you eagerly make your judgements despite that ignorance.

 

[CannonFodder]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Well you pretty much are touting your morals here. Because why else are you constantly trying to draw the comparisons between a biological living thing and a business establishment? Should I start explaining how businesses work by comparing different departments to the human body to appease you?

Your entire argument seems to boil down to is the idea of "CORPORATIONS HAVE LOTS OF MONEY SO THEY SHOULDN'T GET TO SUE ANYBODY" which is a bullshit notion that a business should just allow itself to be wronged or that a court should take their case less seriously for the sole reason that they're a business. That suddenly, the copyright holder's rights are somehow inversely proportional to how much money that company is making on its IP because they're able to monetize it and mass produce it themselves. Your logic would dictate that someone robbing a Walmart is somehow less serious than someone robbing a mom and pop store because the Walmart could "handle the losses".

Sure, there's a difference between the dude who's downloading movies for personal use and the guy who's mass distributing pirated copies. Problem is on sharing services like Limewire was and with most torrent communities, the stuff you download also gets seeded to other people. You become part of the distribution ring, which ropes you into getting in more trouble than simply downloading a movie off the internet. So no, while that guy may not be a Kim DotCom-type of person, he's still liable for the distribution of pirated content.

*warp factor 10 facedesk*

It's official you have not been paying attention to anything whatsoever I have posted.

I have not been touting my moral views anywhere about the subject, if I had to summarize what I have been arguing this whole time into once sentence it would be "companies are NOT people". I have been hitting you over the head with this point up and down this thread going "this is my point" and yet it has yet to sink in.

My whole point is not about the morals of copyright infringement, it's not about rights, it's not about anything other than that people and companies are not the same thing therefore they should not be treated the same under the law.

Not everybody who disagrees with you is going "ermagod companies r t3h evil", not everyone who disagrees with you is hugboxing, not everyone who disagrees with you is touting "companies are taking our rights". Some of us are in fact trying to debate with you, BUT you are instantly taking any post who disagrees with you as someone thinking "ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER!".

Term_the_schmuck: Hypocrisy is magic

 

[Term_the_Schmuck]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

It's official you have not been paying attention to anything whatsoever I have posted.

I have not been touting my moral views anywhere about the subject, if I had to summarize what I have been arguing this whole time into once sentence it would be "companies are NOT people". I have been hitting you over the head with this point up and down this thread going "this is my point" and yet it has yet to sink in.

Maybe the reason why I'm not getting your point is because your point is so unbelievably misguided and stupid that I can't believe someone would actually try to make it.

What basis are you making the claim that corporations aren't to be treated as people? You start listing off biological factors as if somehow those mean something. You gotta give me something better than "WELL CORPORATIONS DON'T EAT CHEESEBURGERS LIKE I DO SO THEY AREN'T PEOPLE." "People" in this case being a convenient way of saying "entity" or "party", which the corporation very much is, just as you are and mean a whole lot more in a legal case than the literal definition of "people".

My whole point is not about the morals of copyright infringement, it's not about rights, it's not about anything other than that people and companies are not the same thing therefore they should not be treated the same under the law.

And I'm saying this is a conclusion you made based on your moral outlook of what a corporation is. You don't view corporations in the same light as the average Joe. And if the only reason why you don't view them as such is because the corporation doesn't exist inside of a single physical human body, then I'm not sure it's worth debating with you to begin with because once again, you're trailing off into some batshit logic that makes sense to no one but you, which is part of the reason why every time you ask the question of the rest of the forum beginning with "does anyone besides me..." I answer back "It's just you."

 

[AshleyAshes]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

CannonFodder, why are you attempting to apply a philosophical definition of 'person' into an area of legal definitions? Then puffing out your chest and mocking those who continue the grown up conversation about law? It's kinda stupid.

 

[CannonFodder]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

"People" in this case being a convenient way of saying "entity" or "party", which the corporation very much is

And here is the problem with your point.

 

[Term_the_Schmuck]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

And here is the problem with your point.

Why? Does the corporation not exist? Are they not Incorporated, an LLC, LLP, LLLP, DBA, PC, GP? Because if they are, yes, they are a legal entity and are entitled to all the rights that come with that name by paying their taxes, filing quarterly earnings reports, and other expenses demanded of them by the state and/or federal government.

A corporation may not take a shit like you do CF, but they do pay their taxes.

 

[CannonFodder]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Why? Does the corporation not exist? Are they not Incorporated, an LLC, LLP, LLLP, DBA, PC, GP? Because if they are, yes, they are a legal entity and are entitled to all the rights that come with that name by paying their taxes, filing quarterly earnings reports, and other expenses demanded of them by the state and/or federal government.

A corporation may not take a shit like you do CF, but they do pay their taxes.

Go back to biology 101 and relearn human anatomy.

 

[AshleyAshes]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Why? Does the corporation not exist? Are they not Incorporated, an LLC, LLP, LLLP, DBA, PC, GP? Because if they are, yes, they are a legal entity and are entitled to all the rights that come with that name by paying their taxes, filing quarterly earnings reports, and other expenses demanded of them by the state and/or federal government.

A corporation may not take a shit like you do CF, but they do pay their taxes.

The weird thing here is, since CannonFodder doesn't come up with anything other than a philosophical definition, I think CF's entire arguement is that they are simply not comfortable with the idea of corporations, governments or other things being legally defined as a form of person, and so it must be attacked...

 

[Term_the_Schmuck]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Go back to biology 101 and relearn human anatomy.

Oh my, I do believe I broke CF.

Or maybe he's just not who we think he is.

 

[CannonFodder]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Oh my, I do believe I broke CF.

^Danth's law.

 

[AshleyAshes]

Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Oh my, I do believe I broke CF.

Or maybe he's just not who we think he is.

I'm tellin' you, I think CF has aspergers or something and just won't admit to it. It's the only way to explain their oddball weird ideas about all things humanity.