Home
Superhero Store
Members Area
Learn How
Media
Community
Classifieds
CBM Master List
Other News Home : News : Pictures : Wallpaper : Videos

In Depth Discussion On How Internet CENSORSHIP Will Affect YOU!

In Depth Discussion On How Internet CENSORSHIP Will Affect YOU!

We must take this bill for what it is, loss of liberty.

Follow stopsopapip:
View CBM Profile
By stopsopapip - 1/18/2012
Surely you've heard it by now but in case you haven't I will explain it yet again. SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) The bill, if made law, would expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. Protect IP also known as Senate Bill 968 or S. 968, is a proposed law with the stated goal of giving the US government and copyright holders additional tools to curb access to "rogue websites dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods", especially those registered outside the U.S.



This is what WILL happen if this bill goes though. Some points may point out the extreme but the scary thing is, it COULD HAPPEN.

1. Torrent sites and other sites which host copyrighted material will still be around because there are several ways to get around any kind of blocking.
2. This isn't anything new. Entertainment industry's are complaining about something which doesn't exist. People who use the copyrighted material most of the time are not going to pay for the content anyway. If it wasn't free they wouldn't even check it out. So you get the same number of people that will pay for something, and those that don't. It won't make any difference. Besides what are they complaining about? Their audience is growing!
TheaterGoingGrowing
And if the movie industry is failing? It's not but just use the suspension of disbelief for a second. Look at this very good article about this: MovieIndustryKillingFilmsNotPirates

3. Back a long time ago we would tape record movies on TV to our VHS tapes. Was that considered pirating? We even recorded music from the radio. Was that considered pirating? No. So explain the difference? People still buy CD's, DVDs, and go to movies and people still work very hard to get them for free. Nothing has changed!
4. This will start something that is BIG, no HUGE. Think about it. First they say: You can not stream movies, music or any other content you do not buy. Okay, then what about going over to a person's house and watching a movie or listening to music your friend bought. YOU DID NOT BUY IT! SO IT MUST BE PIRATING! Wait. That's not pirating. Then why is the other pirating? But then it starts to go to where ONLY YOU can see the CONTENT YOU PURCHASE. What does that mean? To watch a movie you would have to close your door, lock your door in case someone comes in, then put in your ear buds/phones (so that no one can hear the copyrighted content), and then watch your movie. If you have anyone who sees the copyrighted content THEY DID NOT BUY accidental or not then you must report them. If you do not your are considered an accessory after the fact. But you might still be because after all you didn't take enough precautions in case this happened. Oh and using this logic to the fullest finally states that you would have to buy four copies of each film you watch, one for each eye and one for each ear. Of course this is quite taken to the extreme and would not hopefully be done. Although hopefully you can see the point of this analogy.
http://7.mshcdn.com/wp-content/gallery/sopa/wikipedia.jpg
5. It would prevent education. Sites such as Wikipedia would be taken down, because they give synopsis of films, or even if not for that I'm sure there would be something else. Wikipedia has helped many to have such a better education and it would be shut down because of this. Even Youtube has educational videos on it and it would be shut down for the same reason.
6. This is a very well done video which explains probably even better than I have done of why this bill needs to be stopped:

PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.



For Comic Book lovers this is directly related to you. Even Marvel is supporting SOPA! SOPASupporters As well as several other companies. Be sure to contact these companies telling them how you feel about it. Here is Marvel Entertainment's Media Relations jeff_klein@dkcnews.com email. Here is more contact information for Marvel: ContactMarvel



In conclusion this is bad. Very bad. Horrible in fact. We need to work together to STOP THIS BILL. In fact BURN AND BURY THIS BILL. So that it will never be able to come back. This is IMPORTANT. This is our DUTY. This is our LIBERTY.

GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH! -Patrick Henry

TakeActionNOW

Be sure to CRUSH that THUMBS UP BUTTON, share on facebook, tweet on twitter, and talk to your friends about this.
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under "safe harbor" provisions and will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. For expeditious removal, contact us HERE.
15
LIKE!
43 Comments
headlopper - 1/18/2012, 1:04 PM
I get that artist's and copyright owner's want their slice of the pie, but the internet has enough laws and statutes on 'the books' to prosecute anyone whom they think has violated their rights according to the law.

Stay the fu** out of our lives International , Federal, state and local government!(this is why I'm a Conservative...too much intrusive, micro-managing government bureaucracy)
stopsopapip - 1/18/2012, 1:09 PM
headlopper Exactly. we have to take action NOW!
nhalden - 1/18/2012, 2:42 PM
There are some skewed facts....that have no basis. The Bills clearly state and define what is "criminal". The last few statement on the video are 'outrageous and inflammatory" meant to scare folks.

The intent of the bills is a good thing...protect private property. The means and how they go about it is questionable.

My take away from the video....people like to steal shit and it should be ok on the internet..because it's a wasteland or a genie that can't be put back into it's bottle.

I am against censorship and anything the blocks the free change of content and ideas over the internet...but I am also for protecting what should be protected.
nhalden - 1/18/2012, 2:43 PM
exchange of content *
headlopper - 1/18/2012, 2:55 PM
@nhalden - The lawsuits will be never-ending. This law is dreamed up by trial lawyer's who will no doubt benefit from it.
Instead of chasing ambulances, now they'll be chasing some acne-faced teen who own's a blog.

As I wrote: there are already enough laws on the books to protect people's lawfully owned property in any of it's forms...the laws just have to be enforced responsibly.
Ranger14 - 1/18/2012, 3:05 PM
Like I said on the other thread. Protecting copyright infringement is not censorship. You don't have the freedom to use something that doesn't belong to you.
JDUKE25 - 1/18/2012, 3:21 PM
@Ranger14 like it's been said before, is that image you're using for your avatar yours? Did you create that image? If not, you shouldn't be using it. You said it yourself, "You don't have the freedom to use something that doesn't belong to you."
Polygame - 1/18/2012, 3:42 PM
remember, remember the fifth of november...
LucasMend - 1/18/2012, 3:47 PM
Hope SOPA fails in the end, this is a [frick]ing ridiculous subject even to be considered by a government person
WinterSoldier24 - 1/18/2012, 3:51 PM
@Everyone attacking Ranger14 I'm not coming to his rescue but I don't understand your problems with what he's said. The only way they would ask you to remove the image is if you've claimed it as your own or saying slanderous comments towards the image that directly affects the image and leads to public scrutiny of said image.

Although I don't expect to make a dent in any of your thick skulls with my comment, just throwing in my two cents.

=P
CPBuff22 - 1/18/2012, 3:56 PM
I am Vice President of a Indie Hip Hop Label. If this bill passes it does NOTHING for our artists except hurt them. With out being able to share video and audio via pages like YouTube, Facebook, Myspace, Google+, and Twitter we would loose a huge part of our marketing. Unlike major labels such as Interscope or DefJam we can't afford television marketing and NO ONE listens to the radio anymore. With out our artists listeners being able to share our copyrighted material no one new is able to find out who are artists are. Top that off with the court battles we have already had with Sony over copyright because we used an open source loop program to create a beat for one of our more popular tracks. A Sony artist used the same open source in one of their songs so Sony claimed ownership. We had to fight to have our videos returned to YouTube and ended up in court when Sony filed suit. As a small label we can't afford to do this kind of thing regularly. And had this track been any thing but one of our biggest hits we would have just pulled it and not spent a fortune on legal console. That was the only year we have LOST money.
stopsopapip - 1/18/2012, 4:09 PM
Thanks again guys and don't forget to crush that like button! ;)
Ranger14 - 1/18/2012, 4:44 PM
"Ranger14 like it's been said before, is that image you're using for your avatar yours? Did you create that image? If not, you shouldn't be using it. You said it yourself, "You don't have the freedom to use something that doesn't belong to you."

...and I don't have any issue if someone tells me I have to take it down, because I do not own the image, but if you think the government is going to have the time and interest and ability to enforce millions of users who are posting small graphics on the web, I think you are fooling yourselves. I am not using the image for commercial gain, so it doesn't fall under the enforcement part of the law anyway.

"I am Vice President of a Indie Hip Hop Label. If this bill passes it does NOTHING for our artists except hurt them. With out being able to share video and audio via pages like YouTube, Facebook, Myspace, Google+, and Twitter we would loose a huge part of our marketing."

As the owner of an Indie label and as the artists you all have the ability to share to your hearts content. Nothing prevents you from doing so, if that is how you want to market the product. Unless you report to the government that sites are violating your copyright and pirating the property, it's status quo for your label and your artists.

...again...people are blowing this way out of proportion. I founded a nonprofit organization and have consulted in the sector and there are regulations in our sector that many organizations don't follow. The government doesn't have the time or resources to enforce most of them unless it is really serious. I don't see this being any different. If you're not violating anything you shouldn't have to worry.

"Ranger, when CBM gets it's ad revenue pulled, blocked by google, and effectively shut down because we post a picture of an upcoming movie I hope you're still high and mighty."

Warner has had images and trailers pulled from this site in the past if they are infringing on their copyrights. I have seen plenty of youtube videos that have had the videos pulled due to the owner claiming copyright issues. Ads generated by Google should have already had rights cleared to be used or they wouldn't be able to generate ad income from them, nor should they.
luffycapri - 1/18/2012, 5:17 PM
Polygame - 1/18/2012, 5:18 PM
you really don't know what you are talking about ranger14.
financial gain have nothing to do with having the right to use a picture you don't own. If it don't belong to you, YOU JUST CAN'T USE IT.PERIOD.

A lot of guys like you arrange the situation as they go, just like you do right now and it is very annoying.
LFANCH - 1/18/2012, 5:34 PM
I agree that companies should have a better way to protect their property from being distributed over the internet, but the bill isn't clear cut enough and leaves to much room for abuse.

Oh, and you can't justify lets say downloading a movie just because you wouldn't watch it if it wasn't free. I'm not going to buy a camero anytime soon but that doesn't make it ok for me to take one that somebody left their keys in.
WinterSoldier24 - 1/18/2012, 5:37 PM
@Polygame Dude, Ranger14 just perfectly summed up the whole 'copyright infringement' confusion. You think it's annoying because either A: You don't understand the point he's actually making; or B: You don't agree with it because you're one of the people that are afraid that the government will shut down whatever porn-site you're a member of.

As I said before bro, these bills/acts have nothing to do with porn. Only with pirated copy-written material I.E. music, bootlegged movies etc. If people like you are mad because you wont be able to watch movies or listen to music for free then that's fine. That's your own personal gripes, But don't act like you're the personal liaison to every American out there.
Ranger14 - 1/18/2012, 6:17 PM
"you really don't know what you are talking about ranger14.
financial gain have nothing to do with having the right to use a picture you don't own. If it don't belong to you, YOU JUST CAN'T USE IT.PERIOD"

I never said you could and my earlier post states that. I suggest you also research and comprehend what is also considered public domain as opposed to copyright infringement. There are a number of you who are proving you don't have a clue what the bill is about and what the actual issue is about. You are just listening to the propaganda and letting it guide you. The law deals with those who are infringing on copyright for financial gain. This is a discussion about the law. Though the law isn't perfect, something needs to be done and with some tweaking I don't doubt that it will get passed someday and the sky isn't going to fall like many here seem to think it is.

If you all think that someone who posts a photo on the internet is going to search all the millions of blogs and sites on the internet to see who has reposted it and then calls the government and says they want them to shut down someone's account because they are using their image for their avatar, then you really don't get it. That's not what this bill is about and the government wouldn't waste their time on such trivial matters anyway (I am referring to the fact the bill being proposed doesn't cover that). This is more about the big picture piracy and copyright infringement.

Again...if an image like an avatar does not have a copyright, which many images on the internet don't have, then it is considered public domain and you are free to use it. The bill is not concerned about that.
stopsopapip - 1/18/2012, 7:01 PM
Ranger14

"If you all think that someone who posts a photo on the internet is going to search all the millions of blogs and sites on the internet to see who has reposted it and then calls the government and says they want them to shut down someone's account because they are using their image for their avatar, then you really don't get it. That's not what this bill is about and the government wouldn't waste their time on such trivial matters anyway (I am referring to the fact the bill being proposed doesn't cover that). This is more about the big picture piracy and copyright infringement.

Still don't get it I see. Well ok here we go.

Number 1: If one of these bills are passed will they be used to just take down copyrighted material? No. Why and as you said why would they waste their time on such trivial matters? They wouldn't. They would just shut down 90% of websites because of 1000's of different images videos or quotes used other sources.

"I never said you could and my earlier post states that. I suggest you also research and comprehend what is also considered public domain as opposed to copyright infringement. There are a number of you who are proving you don't have a clue what the bill is about and what the actual issue is about. You are just listening to the propaganda and letting it guide you. The law deals with those who are infringing on copyright for financial gain. This is a discussion about the law. Though the law isn't perfect, something needs to be done and with some tweaking I don't doubt that it will get passed someday and the sky isn't going to fall like many here seem to think it is."

Okay think about this for a second, if we already are getting a NON-COPYRIGHTED video getting taken off just because Universal censored it, then ouch. What are they going to do with a bill which doesn't have much guidelines then you get a HUGE amount of CENSORSHIP.

Here is the link: MegaUploadSongHitsBigOnWebUMGTriesToTakeItDown

Also here is the video directly below.



Now does that need to be taken down? NO! What would they do with the powers the bills give them?!!?!

LFANCH I didn't say it was right anywhere in the article. I said: People who use the copyrighted material most of the time are not going to pay for the content anyway. If it wasn't free they wouldn't even check it out. So you get the same number of people that will pay for something, and those that don't. It won't make any difference. What I mean by that is people are going to do what they want to do. Walking off with someone's camero (Camaro*) was a good analogy but still flawed. For instance: Since people steal Camaro's then we must make a bill where no one can drive, look at, or touch this vehicle. His friend can't drive it, he can't rent it, or any other thing. It is strictly his car. He can't even show it to anyone in case someone might copy the making of the car. Oh and he can't describe or take a picture of it either.

Do you understand now?

WinterSoldier24 @Polygame Dude, Ranger14 just perfectly summed up the whole 'copyright infringement' confusion. You think it's annoying because either A: You don't understand the point he's actually making; or B: You don't agree with it because you're one of the people that are afraid that the government will shut down whatever porn-site you're a member of.

As I said before bro, these bills/acts have nothing to do with porn. Only with pirated copy-written material I.E. music, bootlegged movies etc. If people like you are mad because you wont be able to watch movies or listen to music for free then that's fine. That's your own personal gripes, But don't act like you're the personal liaison to every American out there.

Okay, we know that porn won't be censored... but what else does your comment say? :P Here comes the rub dude, next time you listing to your friend's music CD, think about that you are listening to copyrighted material. Same as you watching a film at a friends house.

Nuff said.

Now I just want to say a hearty THANK YOU FOR ALL MY SUPPORTERS WHO THUMBED UP THIS ARTICLE. Because we made it to the MAIN! :)
SteveRogersSon - 1/18/2012, 7:38 PM
All I figure is that the dorks on here won't be able to post their little lipsyncd youtube videos from their favorite movies...no updates...if people take pics from a scene being filmed and post it online...NOLANITES I'm looking at your sorry asses...what then?
stopsopapip - 1/18/2012, 7:46 PM
ELgUaSoN Thanks man. Means a lot. ;)

SteveRogersSon If your comment made any sense I would say more, but since it doesn't I'll just laugh at your pathetic way of saying something.
Ranger14 - 1/18/2012, 7:54 PM
" If one of these bills are passed will they be used to just take down copyrighted material? No. Why and as you said why would they waste their time on such trivial matters? They wouldn't. They would just shut down 90% of websites because of 1000's of different images videos or quotes used other sources."

You seem to have not read the bill. The bill is directed toward copyrighted material being used for personal and/or financial gain. Avatars used on a board like this are a non-issue in the eyes of the bill. If you think they are going to shut down 90% of websites regardless...That's just utter paranoia

As for the megaupload video, if there is no infringement occurring, then you take it to court and win the battle just like you do with any other law that one is accused of breaking. The issue in question with the video is if it is infringement or not. That's what the courts decide is if the law applies or not. Megaupload violates copyrights on a daily basis, so I am not going to feel too sorry for them.
grynningguy - 1/18/2012, 8:38 PM
Now, I'm no politician, but this is just not good. As a musician I understand how anyone who creates a piece of work wants & needs to be compensated, we have bills to pay & that's just how it's going. But really, what happened to creating a work of art, whether it be music, paint, movie, literature, simply for people to enjoy it & appreciate it. In turn, what happened to the land of the free? I am not condoning streaming copyrighted material, I'd be pist if someone recorded, distributed, & made profit from it. However, the greed surrounding this (and practically all of America these days) is unbelievable. I have a feeling this won't pass but the motivation is behind it seems like purely Greed.

Eh, won't last long. Not worried. It's just saddening.
stopsopapip - 1/18/2012, 8:52 PM
Ranger14

"You seem to have not read the bill. The bill is directed toward copyrighted material being used for personal and/or financial gain. Avatars used on a board like this are a non-issue in the eyes of the bill. If you think they are going to shut down 90% of websites regardless...That's just utter paranoia"

I HAVE READ the bill. You don't understand what it causes.

In the bill:
INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE.—The term
15 ‘‘Internet search engine’’ means a service made
16 available via the Internet that searches, crawls, cat-
17 egorizes, or indexes information or Web sites avail-
18 able elsewhere on the Internet and on the basis of
19 a user query or selection that consists of terms, con-
20 cepts, categories, questions, or other data returns to
21 the user a means, such as a hyperlinked list of Uni-
22 form Resource Locators, of locating, viewing, or
23 downloading such information or data available on
24 the Internet relating to such query or selection.

So what that means is your a censoring search results. Isn't that bad enough? Do I really have to explain why that is bad to you?

Plus it would take down websites like twitter, facebook, and youtube, because if they didn't feel like they where doing a good enough job at censorship they could sue them for something a user posted.

Some stuff I'd like you to read: WhySOPAandProtectIParebadideas

I think we need to agree to disagree.
stopsopapip - 1/18/2012, 8:53 PM
grynningguy Well said sir!
Ranger14 - 1/18/2012, 9:25 PM
You are reading the definition of Internet Search Engine and then making a jump that they are going to censor that because that is the definition of Internet Search Engine, b Like I said, I think people are reading way too much into it and people are going to read into it as they see fit. It isn't going to pass the way it is. There will be another bill sometime in the future that will be written in a better way. It's just a matter of time. I just get tired of people crying freedom of speech and censorship every time a piece of regulation is submitted or rule are put into place. We will agree to disagree.
stopsopapip - 1/18/2012, 10:22 PM
Ranger14

Ehh... sorry mistake I meant this:

(B) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES.—A pro-
18 vider of an Internet search engine shall take
19 technically feasible and reasonable measures, as
20 expeditiously as possible, but in any case within
21 5 days after being served with a copy of the
22 order, or within such time as the court may
23 order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing
24 site that is subject to the order, or a portion of
1 such site specified in the order, from being
2 served as a direct hypertext link.

Basically I understand this to say that if they find it that search engines do not censor their results to their standers that they would be able to force them or what ever. Telling the search engine what to do is wrong in the first place. It's like telling a gun maker to not make someone kill someone with it. But of course that's another issue...

LOL. I'd like to make an issue of all these businesses selling our phone numbers!

How TelemarketersGetYourPhoneNumber

Oh and don't make that all a big deal about comparing them stealing my phone number or somethin... lol. Like anything else it's annoying but nothing to make legislation about.
stopsopapip - 1/18/2012, 10:22 PM
Ranger14 Oh and I agree to disagree.
bgharcourt - 1/18/2012, 10:26 PM
some food for thought....

Operation cost of a site like this one is covered by ad revenue. If this site is given a subpena to terminate on infringement violations, it's not just Big G who will get a notice from the U.S courts. All search engines will be ordered to remove CBM.com from their list. Also(and this is important)the companies that pay for ads will be notified and they will be within their rights to void contracts with Best Little Sites, LLC.

Even if BLS fights the claim and wins(which will cost a large sum of money), in the end they may have to seek new advertisers to fund the site and try to recoup loss taken during the legal battle. All the while, the site will be shut down, not generating revenue.

I cannot speak for the owners of this site, but if that all went down on a site I owned, I would say this would be more trouble then is worth. And it will happen again because now my site is on the radar of the entertainment industry.


Macksimus - 1/18/2012, 10:32 PM
To all the people who think this bill is "going to shut down 90% of all websites:"

Nope. It won't. That's just some BS propoganda created by the mega-sites such as Google and Facebook. Those websites will still exist, but they will have to pay up a little. That's what this is about. Money. It's going to cost the tech companies/internet sites a little more money; a little more time, and a little more resources.

Therefore, unless you download/steal pirated movies, or you own a large tech company/internet site that this bill is going to affect financially, don't worry. These websites make a shit ton of money; they can go [frick] themselves. I'm not signing this bill. Besides, the bill's goals aren't the problem; it's really about the bill's verbage. They'll rewrite it in order to please they're rich constituents; in the mean time, these tech companies are going to create mass hysteria in order to manipulate us little people into backing their motives. [frick] THAT.


comicguy88 - 1/18/2012, 11:29 PM
@stopsopapip ...great article

"When injustice becomes law. Resistance becomes duty."..Thomas Jefferson

WE ARE ANONYMOUS.WE ARE LEGION. WE DO NOT FORGIVE. WE DO NOT FORGET. EXPECT US!!.
theFACE - 1/19/2012, 2:14 AM
@Ranger14 - i agree with you dude, i dont have a problem with the bill. To be honest i think most people wont even notice a difference if it passes.

@stopsopapipa - although i disagree with the point your trying to make, i have some information that i thought might help you. First of all i'm British so i dont know if this solution will affect you (if i'm right and assusming your American), but there is a website you can register with which basically stops most telesales companies from contacting you. I cant quite remember the website because i did it a while ago, i'll try and have a look for it and post it here.
theFACE - 1/19/2012, 2:17 AM
@stopsopapipa - just ran a quick search and found the website, it does appear to be just the UK but maybe there is a similar service in the US.

http://www.mpsonline.org.uk/tps/index.html
stopsopapip - 1/19/2012, 7:12 AM
bgharcourt Exactly.

Macksimus And the enternatnment is so nice it doesn't even need our support to push this bill through... oh ouch...

"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

comicguy88 Thanks.

theFACE Well, hopefully you'll never find out what will happen... :P Thanks for the info! :)

Dawnelldo Interesting video, thanks. ;)
ISleepNow - 1/19/2012, 8:48 AM
Some legislation should be introduced that will effectively protect copyright infringement on the web but SOPA 968 isn't it. If Google wants to censor search results why don't they censor websites that dump viruses on your computer for a change? They have Never effectively done that.

If this passes Wikipedia will probably be hosted by the Web Ecology Project out of Switzerland the way Encyclopedia Dramatica now is or Pirates Bay or some other offshore domain where hackers and other malicious trolls go to download their free porn
nhalden - 1/19/2012, 9:37 AM
I dont' get why people think Wikipedia would be impacted. I heard because they post song lyrics and movie quotes etc...

This is all information that is already out in the public domain. The content may be copyrighted but the law clearly states what is criminal...the reproduction and distribution for commercial purposes.

Sites like wikipedia and Britanica are informational not "commerical". Sites like this one are Art, information, and news driven....NOT commercial sales of this stuff.

I think this is a HUGE misunderstanding that is being put out there by folks that don't want any protections or regulations of the internet....period. Has nothing to do with the "truth" or who would really be impacted as "criminal" vs someone who may lose a link to an illegal site.
nhalden - 1/19/2012, 9:51 AM
@bgharcourt - what do you think CBM is doing to be in violation of these bills or ANY current copyright laws?

Fan driven, information, opinion, news, etc...
I've been on this site for a few years and I have never seen anything or anyone associated with this site post, recreate, publish, sell, market, or merchandise anything for profit that would be in violation of these laws as written.

I have seen content removed by request, this is the proper process and will continue to be.

IF CBM was in the movie download business or Comic download business, and allowed users to post and trade copyrighted material and were not affiliated with the owners...then they would be shut down.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but CBM is not that guy.

Avatars, editorials, reviews, trailers, previews, etc...aren't going to fall under these laws (no matter what anyone says - they're just not)

There just isn't going to be a direct impact to site like this one, or wikipedia, or Facebook etc...depending on content origination, links, posts, and whatnot may be asked to be removed, as well they should.
stopsopapip - 1/19/2012, 11:23 AM
ISleepNow Ummm... say that again... :P

nhalden Maybe we don't like people censoring things needlessly they already have the right to take stuff down. Why do they need anything more? LOL. This is the real problem. If you where in control of the bill you may not use it for bad purposes, but they already have used it unwisely so my point is that why should we increase their power? Besides copy right laws are changing all the time. With this bill passed they probably would legislate that you couldn't have any kind of stuff accept official released stuff. No on set pics etc. It's not what it necessarily is right now. It's what it has the power to become. BTW since you support it so much what are the flaws in your opinion?
nhalden - 1/19/2012, 1:01 PM
Most see this as a way to stop illegal downloading and file shareing...and yeah that's one of the main goals as that is a rampant problem.

If an artist wants to record something and put it out there for all to have for free...there is nothing stopping that. But is someone copyrights that material they have the right to protect that asset from pirating.

What are the flaws? - well I think the biggest is that it was worded in such a way that leads to speculation and such as many on this site and the media have stated. "The internet as we know it will be destroyed" or something of that nature. People against these bills have pointed out that there are laws out there that dole out consequences for pirated material. "Why make more?" - well these are extensions of those which tried to be a little more specific as well has be alittle more harsh. I think this was more about China and other foreign entities making money, more so than it was about the act of file sharing and other things that people are connecting to this. I think the wording should have been directed as such...however, that would not have been "politically" correct.

What I support is not CENSORSHIP but the protection of ownership and the things that go along with it.
The bills attempt to help with that.

Examples:
1. Coach hand bags (offical site sells for $200)
On an unoffical site, based in China,(knockoffs, sold as real) sell for $50 - The bills want to be able to take this site down and remove any links or references to this site as it is harmful to the owners, and consumers who think they are getting the real thing. It also removes cash flow to these counties...US is not getting this money. Also how can you be sure your credit card in for is safe?

2. File sharing - A major lable (Sony) puts out artists music, and own the copyrights for its use, sale, purchase, etc...A foreign site buys an album for $10 posts it on it's site that also gets revenue from click and ads and premium content (which is just pocketed) Users can post their music as well...so now you multiply this by 100,000 or millions of files being swapped for free, daily, monthly...the artist isn't getting any money, the studio, producers, the US no one except the site where the files are being swapped. Viruses, personal info etc...are at risk - these bills want to stop that and protect the rights of owners who want and need those rights protected.

One things that needs to be make more clear is the statement about what was NOT criminal - having copyrighted material is NOT in and of itself illegal or considered infringement. (stated so in the Bill) So I disagree that all of the sudden or even over time possessing things that are out in the public domain (pictures, videos, clips, art, music, etc...) will be seen as infringment.

As some have said on these posts...my avatar would fall under that category and it's just not the way it is...ITS JUST NOT - NEVER WILL BE

Biggest flaw is wording and ambiguity on the parts of the bills....biggest flaw of opponents...not having factual arguments only conjecture and a position that is 100% non-regulation and protection of personal/private material.
WinterSoldier24 - 1/19/2012, 4:34 PM
@stopsopapip People still listen to ripped CDs?

=P
WinterSoldier24 - 1/19/2012, 4:38 PM
Also, I'm a troublemaker 'cause I posted a direct OPINIONATED response to Polygame? Haha ok dude. Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

;)
stopsopapip - 1/19/2012, 6:52 PM
nhalden I understand your points. Which are good, the biggest thing that I see is just another step towards socialism. I have a plan that I think the company’s could do to keep up with 21st century times. In the coming months I will probably post my plan. The biggest thing that I want to say is that this bill is bad. You said that it had some flaws in it yourself. The biggest thing is either we need a way where we can stop piracy without legislation or some legislation which doesn’t infringe upon our rights (I’m sorry but I kinda doubt this will ever work but oh well I’ve been wrong before). The biggest thing is oppose this bill until it is perfect. Because until it is, it doesn’t need to be passed. I know nothing is perfect but something a LOT BETTER than it is now.
WinterSoilder24 Wait a bit and I’ll tell you how to stop most of piracy (you’re always going to have some of it no matter what), without legislation.  Sorry someone reported you btw.

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

.