New Law Would Force Search Engines to Block "Infringing" Sites

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

razer17:

Sober Thal:
I could get behind an idea like this, but....

I can sense the internet rage coming.

PROTECT IP

you realise basically every site on the internet breaches copyright daily, right? You use an image from google images? Probably copyright infringement. Youtube? Probably more copyright infringement than there are torrent downloads.

The thing that most annoys me is the part where it says "Domestic or FOREIGN". They are trying to create a law that allows them to control foreign websites. What. The. Actual. Fuck?

actually most copyrights aren't either in place, or are for other things. Take MLP (*shudders*) for example, their copyrights extend to using the images of the ponies for profit (which we are not) or copying the animation and sound together outright (which do get taken down).

I know there are some dodgey gray areas with copyright, but to report a site will definitely require more effort than just telling somebody, enough effort to only do it if its in your interest.

Any idea to "Tackle Piracy" has pretty sweeping impications for ANY website any government finds even a little distasteful. In a world with this ordienence something like Wikileaks could not exist. Hell anyone posting anything that anybody has a claim to could result in a shutdown request.

They do realize that most people that use infringing websites probably have them bookmarked or memorized and if the people looking for them know people that use them then they are simply going to ask those people, right?

Andy Chalk:
Permalink

As much as I hate to invoke the "slippery slope"...

How few steps is this, do you think, from the "China doesn't want people watching time travel movies" side of things? Not many, really.

This is trying to paint search engines as "aiding and abetting" the infringers, but they're not. This is more like suing the folks publishing a phone book because it contains the number of a known felon. Or suing a newspaper because it says, "Criminals exist."

Go after the criminals, and go after them hard. But don't start expanding the scope in this way, or you'll just punish the innocent and make more enemies.

The_root_of_all_evil:

KingsGambit:
How is it that the USA's laws are all written by corporations?

Because they have all the lawyers. God bless Capitalism *spit*.

Let's think of a possible hypotheticals. Microsoft and Sony are rivals, therefore Bink won't show up Station. Safari won't show up Windows Updates. IE won't show up Firefox.

Just to think, one day those lawyers will have essentially turned America into a corportist state. The distorted views on social democracy, socialism and communism are only a bonus.

MorphingDragon:

Just to think, one day those lawyers will have essentially turned America into a corportist state. The distorted views on social democracy, socialism and communism are only a bonus.

One day? Remind me how many people got arrested over the BP Oil Spill.

The_root_of_all_evil:

MorphingDragon:

Just to think, one day those lawyers will have essentially turned America into a corportist state. The distorted views on social democracy, socialism and communism are only a bonus.

One day? Remind me how many people got arrested over the BP Oil Spill.

I meant by political definition.

Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is a system of economic, political, or social organization that involves the contract of corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, into a collective body.[1] Corporatism is based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body.[2][3] The term corporatism is based on the Latin root "corp" meaning "body".[3]

-Wikipedia

Companies make sure the law enforces Copyright laws as tight as possible. And then, after they've made sure any "law-respecting paragons" of society will choose no other way but buy their products, they start producing low-quality and high-price nonsenses.

I'm fully aware that some form of limitation is required so that an idea isn't exploited by lazy copycats, but this anit-copyright trend is just disappointing.

And now we live in China....Nice one.

Oh just so I understand the Foreign part, if my "services" are not related to anything with America, including payment. Would I still get my shit handed to me?

I don't think it's constructive to post articles closely regarding piracy, when we are forbidden to talk about piracy in a positive light.

I'm not pro-piracy, if that's what you're wondering. It just doesn't seem conducive to a constructive debate.

Sounds like another ridiculous attempt to shut down bittorrent sites. Love that our entire government is in the pocket of a private association (MPIAA).

Government vs Internet = internet always wins in the end.
have fun wasting more taxpayer money, congress.

thublihnk:
This will do nothing except give private corporations yet another way to silence media they don't like--and if you think copyright hasn't been used to do that before, look up the DMCA and what it's done.

Ugh. Guys, I know The Escapist has been a pretty traditionally pro-copyright expansion haven, but we have to see that this is a terrible idea that could do terrible, terrible damage.

Maybe I'm imagining things because I agree with you, but it seems like even the Escapist writers are a bit skeptical of this bill.

As hard as they may try, they'll never get The Pirate Bay.

Resistance is Futile.

Does this smack of tyranny to anyone else?

Bad times coming.

Aureliano:
If you don't mind, I'm just gonna put this right here...

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
-Martin Niemöller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

Wow, invoking Godwin on the 10th post. That's impressive.

OT: I approve of the intent of this bill, but it does have some very troubling implications.

Deadman Walkin:

Baresark:

That quote has nothing to do with either fascism or being right wing.

No it doesn't have anything to do with the right wing, but it DOES parallel with Hitler's Reich, which was what most of the test happened to be about.

It is exactly what Hitler did and I would be surprised if the speaker was speaking about something else. Hitler went after the communists and trade unionists first. Then we all know they went after the Jews.

I see, I misunderstood what you meant. It was said in the face of Fascism, I thought you meant the speaker was fascist. My bad, I jumped the gun on that one.

Baneat:

Baresark:
LoL, lawmakers are so stupid. So easy to get around.

Deadman Walkin:

What is hilarious about this quote is how popular it is. It was in some Social review notes, and was just on a Right-Wing/Fascism test I wrote earlier today

That quote has nothing to do with either fascism or being right wing.

This quote points out a very true state of occurrence that is fairly common. It's all good as long as you are taking away other peoples stuff, but as soon as it happens to you, it won't be.

I will say this though... it's kind of out a place for this particular topic... and when I say kind of... I mean completely. I wouldn't compare a proposed bill to limit IP theft comparable to anything that quote mentions or is about.

IP is self limiting and destructive in nature to peoples natural tendency to spread knowledge to one another. I say, stop people all you want, all you will do is ensure that larger and larger numbers of people will become more and more ignorant.

It has a ton to do with fascism since it's a political ideology which enables it to happen if the leader chooses to do so.

It coincides with any authoritarian political system with a strong central government. Really, it goes with tyrannical monarchies, communism, marxism... hell, even social democracy. I get what the original commenter was going for now though.

Jamboxdotcom:

Aureliano:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

Wow, invoking Godwin on the 10th post. That's impressive.

OT: I approve of the intent of this bill, but it does have some very troubling implications.

Interesting that you approve of a law whose only beneficiaries are people with copyrights that are worth enough to bother hiring a lawyer to sue private citizens over and that also begins a nice trend of censoring internet sites worldwide. And by interesting, I mean that's awful.

Baresark:

I see, I misunderstood what you meant. It was said in the face of Fascism, I thought you meant the speaker was fascist. My bad, I jumped the gun on that one.

No problem, we all do that sometimes! Haha the speaker is definitely not fascist.

i don't think the partys are in a position to pass anything this big

Baresark:

It coincides with any authoritarian political system with a strong central government. Really, it goes with tyrannical monarchies, communism, marxism... hell, even social democracy. I get what the original commenter was going for now though.

lolwut? You need to educate yourself if you think Marxism is a political system.

Social Democracy is still a Democracy therefore opposed to authoritarianism.

MorphingDragon:

Baresark:

It coincides with any authoritarian political system with a strong central government. Really, it goes with tyrannical monarchies, communism, marxism... hell, even social democracy. I get what the original commenter was going for now though.

lolwut? You need to educate yourself if you think Marxism is a political system.

Social Democracy is still a Democracy therefore opposed to authoritarianism.

Marxism is a socio-political and economic philosophy. And no one argues that it hasn't had a large influence on Socialist political views. Social democracy is not "still democracy". It's democracy in name only. In general, a social democracy has much more regulation and steep taxation. It also has strict laws regarding almost all sectors of society. It's only been historically successful in places like Sweden, who have what is a large homogeneous population (that is a population that is has the same or similar values, derp). It's notable that even they almost destroyed their own economy with Social Democracy, and they only saved themselves by dialing it back to almost completely capitalist tax laws (65%-75% private taxation, and 10%-15% corporate taxation).

And no offense to your last assertion, but being a democracy has nothing to do with being anti-authoritarian, that is a prevailing and almost completely false point of view. It's literally 51% telling the other 49% what to do. Even though it's "majority", it doesn't make the laws fair or just in any way.

No my friend, politics is one thing I am very familiar with.

Ohh America leave the internet alone it's the last frontier. (We ain't goin to Mars anytime soon so yeh). The internet should have a universal rule of 'you put it up at your own risk'.

contrary to what the article link on the front page implies, this is only a proposed law.
why the misleading link?

I personally don't care for it.

All logic games aside, I believe part of the whole point of The Internet is the freedom it allows. I understand the concerns of rights olders, but at the same time making the internet safe for businesses requires creating and enforcing a degree of order that undermines the strengths of The Internet to begin with.

This kind of a suit also has a lot of potential for sheer harassment, because intellectual property rights and who can do what with what things is a gray area, and this kind of ruling could lead to people attacking competing sites, or ones that don't like, simply by making claims of violations that never occured. This is not to say of messes caused by suits and counter suits when two groups are fighting over an IP and neither has an official resolution on who controls it, no matter who wins, knocking everything off line means everyone loses (so to speak).

I could be understanding it, but that's my thought.

Besides, honestly, for all my dislike of piracy, I believe there is a need for common sense, and businesses and law enforcement are almost never guided by common sense and what's reasonable. A set of laws largely conceived to prevent people from making money off of someone else's work is largely going to be used to terrorize fan sites. Some kid creates an "I like Carnage Combat Turbo Gold XII" website, and the businessmen holding the right to "Carnage Combat Turbo Gold" are going to come waltzing up and kick over his sand castle and make his life miserable for "daring" to make a fan site, since they want all traffic involving their IP to come through their official sites so they can make money. I look at the conflicts between Viacom and Star Trek fan sites as an example of this. Once upon a time IP holders would have been ecstatic that people cared enough to create such sites and keep the hype going, now it's all about traffic, hits, and making sure to funnel people through their own advertisements, propaganda, and sales pitches. This law is going to spread a lot of ultimatly pointless misery as I understand it.

I think that anti-piracy and IP protection legislature needs to be extremely focused in scope to go after serious pirates, without basically providing overly broad tools that are going to be used for the worst kind of bullying. See, I can understand getting all upset about some guy who cracks your game and say sells it for $5 off his website, or passes it around for free through torrents so nobody is going to buy your game when they can steal it for free... but going after some guy for putting the same video you had on MTV on his site, acting in worship of you, or for making a personal site all about your game because he's that invested in it... sorry, I can understand the logic, but I can't get behind that. That's exactly the kind of garbage that is going to turn the Internet from a place of freedom and expression into a corperate police state with everyone peering through beedly little terrified eyes, afraid of what accidently stepping ont he toes of some corperate collossus whenever they do anything.

IMO businesses just need to accept the internet as it is, chaos and losses and all, or stay off of it entirely and put it out of their minds.

I know many people will disagree with me, and I'm not sure if I'm conveying the distinction appropriatly... and it's possible I misunderstand this, but I'm largely thinking of Viacom going after all the Trek fan sites, especially years ago. I understand their business logic, but at the same time I just can't really bring myself to equate having a "Captain Kirk Rocks" site with pictures of Captain Kirk from the TV series all over it, with say cracking a video game and putting it up on the internet as a free download. To me at least it seems like apples and oranges no matter how it's presented.

Likewise, when it comes to media, I think the changing times and technology need to cause some re-evaluation of when IPs become public domain... again looking at the Viacom vs. Trekkies incidents, when your looking at material that anyone has been able to access at no personal cost other than a viewing device like a TV for ages, I have some trouble with Viacome screaming bloody murder because someone dared to put up a picture of Captain Kirk from the TV series on their site. Stop and think about how much of this there is through the entire inteneet, and if this goes where I think they want it to go, just imagine the massive godzilla rampage we're about to see as every business with any kind of an audio-visual IP takes a wrecking ball to fan sites, youtube, and everything else. Heck, with some of the pictures used in Escapist articles, I can't help but wonder if this law could be used to go after The Escapist as a group of pirates if some IP holder got his dander up for some reason... for you know, using an unliscenced picture of Darth Vader in an article TALKING about Darth Vader (and of course the question arises that without specific permission to market Darth Vader, does talking about him on a site that has paid advertisements fall under this venue?).

Ahh well, I'm tired. I probably have this wrong somewhere. It sounds pretty crazy to me at the moment.

So, they're still playing Whack-a-Mole, huh? Good luck with that.

Therumancer:
I personally don't care for it.

All logic games aside, I believe part of the whole point of The Internet is the freedom it allows. I understand the concerns of rights olders, but at the same time making the internet safe for businesses requires creating and enforcing a degree of order that undermines the strengths of The Internet to begin with.

This kind of a suit also has a lot of potential for sheer harassment, because intellectual property rights and who can do what with what things is a gray area, and this kind of ruling could lead to people attacking competing sites, or ones that don't like, simply by making claims of violations that never occured. This is not to say of messes caused by suits and counter suits when two groups are fighting over an IP and neither has an official resolution on who controls it, no matter who wins, knocking everything off line means everyone loses (so to speak).

I could be understanding it, but that's my thought.

Besides, honestly, for all my dislike of piracy, I believe there is a need for common sense, and businesses and law enforcement are almost never guided by common sense and what's reasonable. A set of laws largely conceived to prevent people from making money off of someone else's work is largely going to be used to terrorize fan sites. Some kid creates an "I like Carnage Combat Turbo Gold XII" website, and the businessmen holding the right to "Carnage Combat Turbo Gold" are going to come waltzing up and kick over his sand castle and make his life miserable for "daring" to make a fan site, since they want all traffic involving their IP to come through their official sites so they can make money. I look at the conflicts between Viacom and Star Trek fan sites as an example of this. Once upon a time IP holders would have been ecstatic that people cared enough to create such sites and keep the hype going, now it's all about traffic, hits, and making sure to funnel people through their own advertisements, propaganda, and sales pitches. This law is going to spread a lot of ultimatly pointless misery as I understand it.

I think that anti-piracy and IP protection legislature needs to be extremely focused in scope to go after serious pirates, without basically providing overly broad tools that are going to be used for the worst kind of bullying. See, I can understand getting all upset about some guy who cracks your game and say sells it for $5 off his website, or passes it around for free through torrents so nobody is going to buy your game when they can steal it for free... but going after some guy for putting the same video you had on MTV on his site, acting in worship of you, or for making a personal site all about your game because he's that invested in it... sorry, I can understand the logic, but I can't get behind that. That's exactly the kind of garbage that is going to turn the Internet from a place of freedom and expression into a corperate police state with everyone peering through beedly little terrified eyes, afraid of what accidently stepping ont he toes of some corperate collossus whenever they do anything.

IMO businesses just need to accept the internet as it is, chaos and losses and all, or stay off of it entirely and put it out of their minds.

I know many people will disagree with me, and I'm not sure if I'm conveying the distinction appropriatly... and it's possible I misunderstand this, but I'm largely thinking of Viacom going after all the Trek fan sites, especially years ago. I understand their business logic, but at the same time I just can't really bring myself to equate having a "Captain Kirk Rocks" site with pictures of Captain Kirk from the TV series all over it, with say cracking a video game and putting it up on the internet as a free download. To me at least it seems like apples and oranges no matter how it's presented.

Likewise, when it comes to media, I think the changing times and technology need to cause some re-evaluation of when IPs become public domain... again looking at the Viacom vs. Trekkies incidents, when your looking at material that anyone has been able to access at no personal cost other than a viewing device like a TV for ages, I have some trouble with Viacome screaming bloody murder because someone dared to put up a picture of Captain Kirk from the TV series on their site. Stop and think about how much of this there is through the entire inteneet, and if this goes where I think they want it to go, just imagine the massive godzilla rampage we're about to see as every business with any kind of an audio-visual IP takes a wrecking ball to fan sites, youtube, and everything else. Heck, with some of the pictures used in Escapist articles, I can't help but wonder if this law could be used to go after The Escapist as a group of pirates if some IP holder got his dander up for some reason... for you know, using an unliscenced picture of Darth Vader in an article TALKING about Darth Vader (and of course the question arises that without specific permission to market Darth Vader, does talking about him on a site that has paid advertisements fall under this venue?).

Ahh well, I'm tired. I probably have this wrong somewhere. It sounds pretty crazy to me at the moment.

Just wanted to say, that has to be the best damn rant I've read on this site. Kudos.

This article is no joke.. Its is very serious, laws like these aim mostly to regulate than to "protect" IP.. Therumancer post is great and very informative on the matter.
Also about two weeks ago I stubbled on this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8481330/Alarm-over-EU-Great-Firewall-proposal.html
I dont like where things are going.. I am agaisnt piracy, but godamit I would freak the fuck out if they mess with the information flow on the internet.

I'm all for something like this. It sounds like something that could finally give the government power to take down sites like pirate bay and other filesharing sites.

Of course it wouldn't be a perfect surgical strike of just every illegal file but it's a good start and far, far better than just doing nothing. I'd vote for it.

I'd rather actually get the pirates and work things out with a few collateral damage cases than keep having it running rampant.

I'm utterly against piracy, but this bill makes me uncomfortable: not for what it does, but for the precedent it sets, and the implications that it holds.

Tackling piracy, go right ahead. Protecting IPs? I'm amazed that anyone would be against it. However, the manner in which this bill works, and the broad sphere of, at most, peripherally related things that it concerns, coupled with powers over foreign domains, is not a healthy way to go about it.

I cannot believe they are still using the guise of "Piracy" in order to push for what is clearly MANDATORY UN-ESCAPABLE CENSORSHIP! This won't even put a crack on piracy's windshield anyway, it'll just piss off THOUSANDS of legitimate users while giving pirates the advantage of a better experience (Basically DRM for the internet)

Anonymous is not going to be amused.
They're not going to be amused at all.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here