THE iDOLM@STER > THE iDOLM@STER 2

The Stop Piracy Online Act and im@s requests/recording.

<< < (12/15) > >>

JNiles:
AAAAAHHHH.  That is the saddest comic ever.  Though it started getting weird halfway through.

satty:

--- Quote from: Setsuna on January 21, 2012, 01:22:45 am ---... It's not over.

If only because, well look at the history of this thread. Wasn't it supposed to be over twice already? November? December, when the end of the year ran down?

I'm not a fan of the odds, but I've been in the political game for quite a while. I'm not seeing a victory, I'm seeing a setup.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01981:@@@L&summ2=m&

This may or may not look familiar to you, only because I don't expect people to understand what they're looking at.

For those who may not know, The last time a similar bill passed - it magically (and I mean magically) gained copyright triggers. I believe the Alabama law did this as did a few others. In other cases, it was attached on as a 'rider' on other bills.

However, this is mostly a 'Keep an eye on it' situation. We might get lucky, but you know, if I could get lucky often enough, I would be playing the lottery...

As for Megaupload's FBI strike, it says two things.

a) It proves that you don't actually need SOPA to strike. In short, they were gunning for more power.

b) Well, I will quote the FBI for various bits of consideration.

Instead, the indictment alleges that the conspirators manipulated the perception of content available on their servers by not providing a public search function on the Megaupload site and by not including popular infringing content on the publicly available lists of top content downloaded by its users

That's an interesting argument to take - if they manage to make this accusation fly, we're in significant trouble, because essentially what's being claimed is 'No public search function = criminality by concealment'

That has bigger implications than one might first realise. It suggests that Safe Harbour provisions no longer apply, and all servers are required to sweep for content for IP infringements at all costs.

This would extend to cloud computing, and more worryingly, towards VPNs. This in turn would uh, cause... interesting questions for, well, nearly every major company on the planet. Namely this:

Why on earth would I rent server space, when that provider will demand (by fear of prosecution) they can examine my company's personal data and corporate secrets when I need a private WAN coupled with a VPN to have my accounting team work at home?

Or worse, I have to LIST it publicly so IP holders can confirm that my business isn't sending some TV show, and stuff like sensitive company documents become visible?

For example, when notified by a rights holder that a file contained infringing content, the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place to make it seamlessly available to millions of users to access through any one of the many duplicate links available for that file.

This second part is also interesting, due to the question of 'Is the FBI alleging how Megaupload worked was actually a scam?' Because how it was supposed to work is that you'd maintain your own personal upload, and that there could be (and probably was) multiple copies.

Either the FBI is alleging the files were NOT duplicated (Namely they checked and if matched, didn't actually store multiple duplicates of the same file.) or in legal terms, the FBI is alleging that it doesn't actually MATTER, and that Megaupload is required to sweep for data matches.

There are however mitigating factors, and furthermore, we have to see in the resulting court case how they are going to exactly structure their argument.

Still, how the FBI structured its argument is very, VERY interesting...

--- End quote ---

Huh, I've heard about a possibility that Congress could pass a form of it like that. It would be out of the public's view and hidden well. As for the Megaupload incident, the fact that the FBI could use an argument like that is troublesome.


--- Quote from: iCONM@STER on January 21, 2012, 03:01:06 am ---I came across an image, quite striking, consisting of some scenes that could possibly be one of us in the future.  It depicts a scenario, albeit fictional, of an old man (though could apply to anyone) recalling the past (being our present), or as he put it, that his episodic memory is recurring a couple of narratives non sic.  Indeed, this is influenced by the possible, disastrous outcome that may incur the Internets' structure, or even, its very being.

What if SOPA was passed?

--- End quote ---

Man...that is depressing.

Elixir:
Maybe this explains the Megaupload ordeal?

http://www.prefixmag.com/news/megaupload-launches-music-service-megabox/60024/

iCONM@STER:
I would like to throw into consideration, ACTA. ACTA, Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which is set to go global as SOPA intended to, and consists of much the same proportions.  Even with that, they most likely do not need it to move any elbow, seeing they have plenty of room for movement under the guise of Intellectual Property protection.

So it seems very broad now, which, to surface, we have seen unfold, SOPA, PIPA, MegaUpload controversial extradition, and now ACTA is coming to light. I smell peril. It is all kind of clashing and spawning up for... what? To surprise?

baruhara:
Even ignoring the ethical objections and the backlash protests that could have been seen before even proposing the bill by any person with the intelligence to understand what they're doing, it doesn't seem like there's any kind of logic going into these bills at all.

A lot of companies would face international marketing losses if their products weren't shown and, in a way, advertised freely on sites like YouTube. Marketing schemes cost a lot of money, and only the huge businesses can afford to advertise on an international level. Banning all kinds of exposure is a ridiculously idiotic move.

The "related videos" and "recommended videos" sections introduces you to a lot of different things that you might not have known about otherwise, without companies having to pay for international marketing. Sites like it also allow people without corporate backing to get a little fame and push their products, as shown by Alex Day getting his single to no.4 in the official UK Christmas music charts.

Without COPYRIGHTED! videos, I wouldn't have found Kalafina, or AKB48, or THE iDOLM@STER, or Resonance of Fate, or a huge variety of other video games and musical artists I've come across through related videos and other such things, that I've then gone on to buy because of the YouTube videos.

Enforcing bills that make filesharing sites illegal won't do anything to stop it. The pirates will just get even smarter in the ways that they go about their business, and anybody who knew anything about the internet would understand that.

I think it was Valve that said something along the lines of, "the way to stop piracy isn't to ban it, it's to offer a better service than the pirates".

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page