Internet Censorship Bill - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Internet Censorship Bill

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby John Kramer » Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:35 pm

Tavish wrote: (the last count I saw was something in the neighborhood of 60 HRs of video being uploaded every minute),


As of today's news, you are correct that it's 60 hours of video per minute, or an hour per second:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399212,00.asp

Doesn't change the fact that they should be held accountable for whatever is uploaded, just like Megaupload was responsible for what was on their site.
I want to play a game. The rules are simple. All you have to do is sit here and talk to me. Listen to me. We haven't been properly introduced. My name is John.

Live or die. Make your choice.
John Kramer
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor

User avatar

Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Oct 2011
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: I am everywhere.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby Tavish » Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:37 pm

John Kramer wrote:It is certainly their fault they've got copyrighted content on their site. They own it, they operate it, and they control every single aspect of their site. Here we go with the "blame someone else game", yet again. Absolutely ridiculous.

Again, you appear to be having an extremely short-sighted understanding of how the internet works. Your ISP owns, operates, and controls every aspect of your internet connection. Should they be forced to manually check every email, every website request, every piece of data that you send and receive from your computer to make sure that you are not engaging in any copyright infringement? How long do you think they would stay in business if that burden was placed on them? The current laws are far from optimal for the copyright holders but it is in the best of interests of everyone involved (the entertainment industry included) to have an internet that is as open for innovation and communication as possible. It isn't blaming somebody else, it is choosing the lesser of two evils.

No, Youtube wouldn't be out of business, they just wouldn't have grown as fast and they'd have had to find a way to be profitable from the very beginning.

There is no doubt that YouTube had its formative years driven by an overwhelmingly large amount of copyright infringement. The founders of the company talked about it constantly and even participated in it. It is also one of the reasons they go above and beyond the requirements of the safe habor requirements. The laws that are present already have done a fairly significant job at forcing YouTube to transform the way they handle infringements. Those that don't want to lay down to these laws will find themselves going the way of Napster, Grokster, or Megaupload. And yes YouTube would be out of business the next day if their choices were either A) to manually review every video that is being or has been uploaded for copyright infringement or B) be open to lawsuits for every infringement.
And again its not just YouTube this would affect. It would be every single website that has any type of user generated content (which is just about every site on the internet that generates any sort of money), every ISP, every web hosting company. Would things really be better off if we sacrificed billions in revenue that is generated online in the hopes of curtailing the loss of millions in revenue due to copyright infringements?
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11071
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby Tavish » Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:47 pm

John Kramer wrote:
Tavish wrote: (the last count I saw was something in the neighborhood of 60 HRs of video being uploaded every minute),


As of today's news, you are correct that it's 60 hours of video per minute, or an hour per second:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399212,00.asp

Doesn't change the fact that they should be held accountable for whatever is uploaded, just like Megaupload was responsible for what was on their site.

There is a major difference between YouTube and Megaupload. One is doing what they can to work within the laws and protect themselves (which in turn helps protect the content owners) and the other basically said screw you to the laws and did what they could to profit off the content owners. The current laws protect those that attempt to work within them and help annihilate those that do not.

The trickle down effect of the Megaupload takedown is already becoming very apparent:

FileSonic removes sharing capability
Uploaded.to blocks US users

But of course some bury their head in the sand
MediaFire isn't a pirate site
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11071
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby Tavish » Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:10 pm

Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11071
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby John Kramer » Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:24 pm

Tavish wrote:Again, you appear to be having an extremely short-sighted understanding of how the internet works. Your ISP owns, operates, and controls every aspect of your internet connection. Should they be forced to manually check every email, every website request, every piece of data that you send and receive from your computer to make sure that you are not engaging in any copyright infringement? How long do you think they would stay in business if that burden was placed on them? The current laws are far from optimal for the copyright holders but it is in the best of interests of everyone involved (the entertainment industry included) to have an internet that is as open for innovation and communication as possible. It isn't blaming somebody else, it is choosing the lesser of two evils.


Good question about the ISP's. That's one for me to consider for awhile. But I will say the "too big to watch" excuse doesn't fly with me. If someone's business grows too big to pay attention to, they either need to hire more people or slow down the expansion.

There is no doubt that YouTube had its formative years driven by an overwhelmingly large amount of copyright infringement. The founders of the company talked about it constantly and even participated in it. It is also one of the reasons they go above and beyond the requirements of the safe habor requirements. The laws that are present already have done a fairly significant job at forcing YouTube to transform the way they handle infringements. Those that don't want to lay down to these laws will find themselves going the way of Napster, Grokster, or Megaupload. And yes YouTube would be out of business the next day if their choices were either A) to manually review every video that is being or has been uploaded for copyright infringement or B) be open to lawsuits for every infringement.
And again its not just YouTube this would affect. It would be every single website that has any type of user generated content (which is just about every site on the internet that generates any sort of money), every ISP, every web hosting company. Would things really be better off if we sacrificed billions in revenue that is generated online in the hopes of curtailing the loss of millions in revenue due to copyright infringements?


Exactly why stricter laws with faster action are necessary. Youtube should have been slowed down and made legal much, much sooner. Instead, they are having to play catch-up to get to where they are supposed to be and are now "too big to watch" according to the excuse makers. That wouldn't have been the case if they had complied with the law (or been forced to comply) from the very beginning.

Sorry, not buying into the "demise of the internet" if website owners are finally required to be responsible for what is on their website and adhere to the law. Should have been that way from the very beginning.

Tavish wrote:There is a major difference between YouTube and Megaupload. One is doing what they can to work within the laws and protect themselves (which in turn helps protect the content owners) and the other basically said screw you to the laws and did what they could to profit off the content owners. The current laws protect those that attempt to work within them and help annihilate those that do not.

The trickle down effect of the Megaupload takedown is already becoming very apparent:

FileSonic removes sharing capability
Uploaded.to blocks US users

But of course some bury their head in the sand
MediaFire isn't a pirate site


The authorities are way too nice. I'll leave that part at that.

Already knew about the trickle down and I expect it to continue. They know that they did not properly monitor their websites, so now they have to make a decision on how they want to proceed. They can try to get away from the U.S., or they can continue to act oblivious to what everyone else already knows and wind up with their site being taken down and charges filed.



Good read. Will be curious to see how it plays out. Two things that stand out to me is that it says Canada doesn't have a fair use provision (not that many Americans truly understand the definition of fair use), so that's interesting. The second thing is slanted of course:

There is no indication in the music industry document of due process or even proof of infringement.


To get a court order to shut it down, they will have to provide some sort of proof of wrongdoing. So regardless of the "without proof" crowd that can sing it from the rooftops, it simply isn't true.
I want to play a game. The rules are simple. All you have to do is sit here and talk to me. Listen to me. We haven't been properly introduced. My name is John.

Live or die. Make your choice.
John Kramer
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor

User avatar

Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Oct 2011
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: I am everywhere.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby jfg » Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:52 pm

I'm going to post something from the owner of a site I frequent which gives a better idea of why SOPA is a bad thing. The bold text is what I feel people are missing. It's not about proof. Even if there is proof, it's more about "without warning".

From Sharifi at Rateyourmusic.com, a site that celebrates music- not a torrent site, just a place to rate music, catalog the music you own, and talk about it:

The SOPA and PIPA bills, if passed, could potentially threaten the existence of RYM. As many of you know, RYM receives constant legal threats from people who don't understand the purpose of the site and mistakenly think that it's some sort of file-sharing/piracy site. A quick mail to the complainant (asking them to spend more than 30 seconds on the site) usually clears things up, but in other cases I've had to pay attorneys to respond.

If these bills were passed, these people wouldn't have to complain to me first; they could just complain directly to the attorney general. The attorney general could then request a temporary injunction against RYM without me being notified, and a judge who likely knows little about the internet would decide whether or not to shut down the site. By the time I would be able to contest the shutdown and contact all the services needed to power RYM, I would be thousands of dollars in debt, and there's no guarantee that I would be able to re-establish all of the affiliate/advertising agreements that we currently have.

If that wasn't enough, it grants immunity to pretty much everyone involved in the process, and even to people who deny services to RYM due to their own suspicion of copyright infringement. That means that if any entity that provides a service to RYM wants to cause the site damage (for example, if I am in a dispute with them over something or if they run a competing site), they could shut the site down by simply claiming that they believed RYM was infringing copyright, and therefore not be required to compensate RYM for their breach of service.

I strongly feel that artists should be properly compensated for their work. But this bill has little to do with protecting artists and everything to do with taking away fundamental legal protections to those who operate web sites. And the sites it will affect more than anything are sites that are legitimate non-infringing sites that are related to entertainment which can often be mistaken for piracy sites by people who have no idea how to use the internet.

I do plan to do something tomorrow in order to raise awareness to the issue, possibly shutting down the site.
Image
jfg
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 6078
(Past Year: 82)
Joined: 4 Nov 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby markj11 » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:27 pm

The United States doesn't own the whole internets so we should still be able to view Asian porn, correct?
I ain't askin' nobody for nothin, If I can't get it on my own. - Charlie Daniels
markj11
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2112
Joined: 3 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Wright here

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby bigken117 » Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:19 pm

that new Liam Nesson movie The Grey looks pretty good, but I don't want to shell out $20 to see it. Anyone know where I can catch it from the comfort of my laptop? :-)
Image

Jacoby Ellsbury - Sponsored by the Fantasy Baseball Cafe!

Play Pick 3!

Follow the Cafe on Twitter!
Like us on Facebook
bigken117
Bouncer
Bouncer

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 12879
(Past Year: 248)
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: posed in an awkward stance

Previous

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: unioreimi and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact