Presto-a RUSH fan! Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jan 19 2012, 11:39 AM) QUOTE (HowItIs @ Jan 19 2012, 03:11 AM) We can prevent piracy... I was with you up until this bit If history has proved anything, it's that we can't prevent piracy. It existed long before the internet, and when it comes to pirates vs. governments, the governments are always a step or two behind (and always will be - it's the nature of piracy for the pirates to innovate in ways the governments aren't prepared for). It's like the online poker debate. A few months ago, the US government illegally (IMO) seized the domains of Full Tilt Poker, Doyle's Room, Poker Stars and a bunch of others because they decided to pass a bullsht law about online gaming. US players were supposedly cut off from playing real money games online. Except that I play for real money at Carbon Poker now. The pirates - and poker enthusiasts - are always one step ahead of the governments. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Bush admin sign the law that prohibited US citizens from gambling online? Then the recent seizing of funds and domains was due to FullTilt stealing the money that was in customers accounts but it would still show you had the money in your account, its just that if, say everyone tried to get their money all at once the money wasn't in the till to pay out everyones balance? Isn't that what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielmclark Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 QUOTE (Presto-a RUSH fan! @ Jan 19 2012, 04:59 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jan 19 2012, 11:39 AM) QUOTE (HowItIs @ Jan 19 2012, 03:11 AM) We can prevent piracy... I was with you up until this bit If history has proved anything, it's that we can't prevent piracy. It existed long before the internet, and when it comes to pirates vs. governments, the governments are always a step or two behind (and always will be - it's the nature of piracy for the pirates to innovate in ways the governments aren't prepared for). It's like the online poker debate. A few months ago, the US government illegally (IMO) seized the domains of Full Tilt Poker, Doyle's Room, Poker Stars and a bunch of others because they decided to pass a bullsht law about online gaming. US players were supposedly cut off from playing real money games online. Except that I play for real money at Carbon Poker now. The pirates - and poker enthusiasts - are always one step ahead of the governments. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Bush admin sign the law that prohibited US citizens from gambling online? Then the recent seizing of funds and domains was due to FullTilt stealing the money that was in customers accounts but it would still show you had the money in your account, its just that if, say everyone tried to get their money all at once the money wasn't in the till to pay out everyones balance? Isn't that what happened? And if it was just Full Tilt, you'd have a good point - but they seized as many poker sites as they could, not just Full Tilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-a RUSH fan! Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jan 19 2012, 09:25 PM) QUOTE (Presto-a RUSH fan! @ Jan 19 2012, 04:59 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jan 19 2012, 11:39 AM) QUOTE (HowItIs @ Jan 19 2012, 03:11 AM) We can prevent piracy... I was with you up until this bit If history has proved anything, it's that we can't prevent piracy. It existed long before the internet, and when it comes to pirates vs. governments, the governments are always a step or two behind (and always will be - it's the nature of piracy for the pirates to innovate in ways the governments aren't prepared for). It's like the online poker debate. A few months ago, the US government illegally (IMO) seized the domains of Full Tilt Poker, Doyle's Room, Poker Stars and a bunch of others because they decided to pass a bullsht law about online gaming. US players were supposedly cut off from playing real money games online. Except that I play for real money at Carbon Poker now. The pirates - and poker enthusiasts - are always one step ahead of the governments. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Bush admin sign the law that prohibited US citizens from gambling online? Then the recent seizing of funds and domains was due to FullTilt stealing the money that was in customers accounts but it would still show you had the money in your account, its just that if, say everyone tried to get their money all at once the money wasn't in the till to pay out everyones balance? Isn't that what happened? And if it was just Full Tilt, you'd have a good point - but they seized as many poker sites as they could, not just Full Tilt. Gotcha. So basically FullTilt gave them a reason to put their foot in the door and our government does what it does, overreact and take away as much of our freedom as they can. I guarantee if they could tax it, it would be legal. Regardless of the reason, I was so pissed when they screwed us out of playing online poker for money. I tried to play for free but it's literally impossible when you have nothing to lose but imaginary money. What would we do if our wonderful government wasn't there to protect us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lerxt1990 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) Its all 1s and 0s. And we connected ourselves with the net. Game over. One cannot, with certainty that many want, control information from flowing. Thoughts, ideas, movies, music, tv shows. The technology that can prevent it will get innovated around, not by an expensive for hire multinational company, but by an army of smart, willful, righteous young people, their brains, and their internet connection. For free. For principle. The model of the creation and distribution and compensation of digital artforms will have to change. They can fight it all they want, but it will be futile. Edited January 20, 2012 by lerxt1990 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowItIs Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Jan 19 2012, 03:49 PM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jan 19 2012, 11:39 AM) QUOTE (HowItIs @ Jan 19 2012, 03:11 AM) We can prevent piracy... I was with you up until this bit If history has proved anything, it's that we can't prevent piracy. It existed long before the internet, and when it comes to pirates vs. governments, the governments are always a step or two behind (and always will be - it's the nature of piracy for the pirates to innovate in ways the governments aren't prepared for). It's like the online poker debate. A few months ago, the US government illegally (IMO) seized the domains of Full Tilt Poker, Doyle's Room, Poker Stars and a bunch of others because they decided to pass a bullsht law about online gaming. US players were supposedly cut off from playing real money games online. Except that I play for real money at Carbon Poker now. The pirates - and poker enthusiasts - are always one step ahead of the governments. daniel is correct. We used to trade tapes to learn about new music. we used to record movies on vhs tapes. We used to record music off of the radio. All of that was "piracy" but no one cared. The best solution they can offer is a way to only buy the same product once. I should have added "try": we can try to prevent piracy in the most obvious ways. But, as you both point out it will never be eradicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iluvgeddy05 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 What bothers me about the legislation is, at the core, suggesting piracy takes jobs away from the U.S. which SOPA/PIPA would prevent. Ok - BUT plenty of other actions and situations that I won't mention here take away U.S. jobs and good from being produced - I'm not seeing any legislation to prevent that. As for using images online - there is a fine line with copyright. In educational institutions, most copyrighted images can be reproduced under "fair use". If you are not publishing or making money off copyrighted images, you can sometimes slide by. It's really a case-by-case situation. Does posting an image to a blog or forum really constitute "publishing" the image? Is it wrong since it is being disseminated through a forum? What if the image you took was used in another setting - and that place "stole" the image from the original source? These are questions I can't really answer (I know basics of copyright in regards to my job) but - in most cases, it's better to be safe than sorry. Ask permission or at the VERY least, cite and credit the source of the image or any copyrighted material. One thing I love about the Flickr Commons is you can discover tons of images that can be reproduced under certain guidelines according to the originator. If you do an advanced search in Flickr and look only under "creative commons", you will find images that spell out exactly what you can and can not do with the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbirdsong Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Without SOPA or PIPA the US government shut down Megaupload yesterday. That means that all the links to the shows in the Different Stages section of this board are gone. Since no money is (usually) involved when fans share shows with each other who suffers? Big Brother isn't coming. Big Brother is here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielmclark Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 QUOTE (drbirdsong @ Jan 20 2012, 10:21 AM) Without SOPA or PIPA the US government shut down Megaupload yesterday. That means that all the links to the shows in the Different Stages section of this board are gone. Since no money is (usually) involved when fans share shows with each other who suffers? Big Brother isn't coming. Big Brother is here. But that's presuming that that was the primary function of Megaupload. It wasn't. Some here have said they use it for perfectly legal reasons, and that's awesome. But it can't be denied that there was a *ton* of illegal sharing going on - software, video, audio, the works. I'm not saying I agree with the takedown, but I at least understand it. The problem of course, is that they're throwing out the baby with the bath water - all the people who were using it legally have suffered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielmclark Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 QUOTE (iluvgeddy05 @ Jan 20 2012, 09:39 AM) What bothers me about the legislation is, at the core, suggesting piracy takes jobs away from the U.S. which SOPA/PIPA would prevent. Ok - BUT plenty of other actions and situations that I won't mention here take away U.S. jobs and good from being produced - I'm not seeing any legislation to prevent that. As for using images online - there is a fine line with copyright. In educational institutions, most copyrighted images can be reproduced under "fair use". If you are not publishing or making money off copyrighted images, you can sometimes slide by. It's really a case-by-case situation. Does posting an image to a blog or forum really constitute "publishing" the image? Is it wrong since it is being disseminated through a forum? What if the image you took was used in another setting - and that place "stole" the image from the original source? These are questions I can't really answer (I know basics of copyright in regards to my job) but - in most cases, it's better to be safe than sorry. Ask permission or at the VERY least, cite and credit the source of the image or any copyrighted material. One thing I love about the Flickr Commons is you can discover tons of images that can be reproduced under certain guidelines according to the originator. If you do an advanced search in Flickr and look only under "creative commons", you will find images that spell out exactly what you can and can not do with the image. I had Fair Use explained to me by a lawyer one time, in terms I could easily understand. She said, "Fair Use is an admission of copyright infringement. You are acknowledging that you don't own the copyright of the work, but that you are using it anyway without permission. The law says that under certain circumstances, that's okay - but the burden of proof is on you, not the copyright holder, and it only holds up in very specific circumstances. Simply claiming "educational" or "editorial" isn't enough and whether or not you're making money has no bearing on the Fair Use claim." So, there's that. She was the lawyer for CafePress.com a few years back, when I used to design t-shirts there. 90% of her job was dealing with copyright issues because designers were (still are, from what I hear) completely clueless about what they could and could not put on a t-shirt. You said, "Does posting an image to a blog or forum really constitute "publishing" the image?" - yes, it does. When talking about websites, that's the very definition of "publishing". Site owners can publish by putting images in their pages directly and users can publish by putting images in comments on those pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lerxt1990 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jan 20 2012, 11:41 AM) QUOTE (iluvgeddy05 @ Jan 20 2012, 09:39 AM) What bothers me about the legislation is, at the core, suggesting piracy takes jobs away from the U.S. which SOPA/PIPA would prevent. Ok - BUT plenty of other actions and situations that I won't mention here take away U.S. jobs and good from being produced - I'm not seeing any legislation to prevent that. As for using images online - there is a fine line with copyright. In educational institutions, most copyrighted images can be reproduced under "fair use". If you are not publishing or making money off copyrighted images, you can sometimes slide by. It's really a case-by-case situation. Does posting an image to a blog or forum really constitute "publishing" the image? Is it wrong since it is being disseminated through a forum? What if the image you took was used in another setting - and that place "stole" the image from the original source? These are questions I can't really answer (I know basics of copyright in regards to my job) but - in most cases, it's better to be safe than sorry. Ask permission or at the VERY least, cite and credit the source of the image or any copyrighted material. One thing I love about the Flickr Commons is you can discover tons of images that can be reproduced under certain guidelines according to the originator. If you do an advanced search in Flickr and look only under "creative commons", you will find images that spell out exactly what you can and can not do with the image. I had Fair Use explained to me by a lawyer one time, in terms I could easily understand. She said, "Fair Use is an admission of copyright infringement. You are acknowledging that you don't own the copyright of the work, but that you are using it anyway without permission. The law says that under certain circumstances, that's okay - but the burden of proof is on you, not the copyright holder, and it only holds up in very specific circumstances. Simply claiming "educational" or "editorial" isn't enough and whether or not you're making money has no bearing on the Fair Use claim." So, there's that. She was the lawyer for CafePress.com a few years back, when I used to design t-shirts there. 90% of her job was dealing with copyright issues because designers were (still are, from what I hear) completely clueless about what they could and could not put on a t-shirt. You said, "Does posting an image to a blog or forum really constitute "publishing" the image?" - yes, it does. When talking about websites, that's the very definition of "publishing". Site owners can publish by putting images in their pages directly and users can publish by putting images in comments on those pages. interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowItIs Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jan 20 2012, 09:31 AM) QUOTE (drbirdsong @ Jan 20 2012, 10:21 AM) Without SOPA or PIPA the US government shut down Megaupload yesterday. That means that all the links to the shows in the Different Stages section of this board are gone. Since no money is (usually) involved when fans share shows with each other who suffers? Big Brother isn't coming. Big Brother is here. But that's presuming that that was the primary function of Megaupload. It wasn't. Some here have said they use it for perfectly legal reasons, and that's awesome. But it can't be denied that there was a *ton* of illegal sharing going on - software, video, audio, the works. I'm not saying I agree with the takedown, but I at least understand it. The problem of course, is that they're throwing out the baby with the bath water - all the people who were using it legally have suffered. We are missing the point here, I think. The DOJ dealt with supposed piracy and copyright infringement WITHOUT the new bill. They don't need it. They have laws in place to deal with those issues already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lerxt1990 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielmclark Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lerxt1990 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lerxt1990 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lerxt1990 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Chilling. Features that quite obviously dissuade piracy, also limit copyright holders ability to see piracy, and site is faulted. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowItIs Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Thanks for that article lerxt1990. Very interesting.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Sawyer Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Jan 20 2012, 11:15 PM) MegaUpload provided no index or search function to the public, and sister site MegaVideo filtered its search results to remove copyrighted content. That seems like a good thing from an anti-piracy standpoint, but the indictment contends that it's a bad thing because it made it harder for copyright holders to see how much piracy was occurring on the service. (Other, unaffiliated sites provide the ability to search MegaUpload lockers. The indictment contends that company executives knew about and relied on those sites to generate the traffic it monetized through advertising sales.) The list of the "Top 100" files at MegaUpload is edited to exclude copyrighted works. You might interpret that as an effort to avoid alerting users to infringing files available in the lockers. The indictment, however, asserts that it "makes the website appear more legitimate and hides the popular copyright-infringing content that drives its revenue." Users could not stream a file on the affiliated MegaVideo site for more than 72 minutes unless they were paid subscribers to MegaUpload. Although that's a lengthy segment, it's not long enough to watch a typical Hollywood movie. The indictment contends that the point wasn't to discourage illegal movie viewing, but rather to monetize it. That is just pitiful! Before I didn't really have anything wrong with them taking down the site: I mean yeah, there was major copyright infringement going on! But that? Now I hope MU wins, big time, because they were obviously trying to discourage infringement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now