SOPA and What it Means to Users of this Forum? [IT'S BACK!]
An excerpt:
"Labeling their approach a "market-based system" to protect consumers and property owners, the authors of HR 3261 would require advertisers, credit card companies and other payment processors to stop providing ads or payment services to any site that a copyright or trademark holder claimed was "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property." No court would need to be involved unless the operator of the site filed a counter-notice asserting that it didn't fit the bill's definition of a dedicated infringer.
That definition is so broad, it could snare all sorts of cloud-based services, said Markham Erickson, executive director of the NetCoalition tech advocacy group. The problem starts with the bill's focus on Web "sites," which as a technical matter can be a single page within a domain. An eBay listing could be considered a "site," as could a Facebook timeline, a Flickr page or a Dropbox folder.
Making matters worse, the bill broadens the notion of what it means to be "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property." In addition to sites that are primarily designed or marketed for infringing uses, the bill's definition includes sites whose operators "avoid confirming a high probability" that they will be used to infringe or who had at any previous time promoted infringements.
According to Erickson, the only way for ad networks and payment processors to respond to a notification about a supposedly offending site would be to block service to the entire domain. Hence, "you can shut down YouTube, you can shut down internet commerce sites, you can shut down hosting sites" for infringements on just a fraction of their pages, Erickson said."
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/20 ... ernet.html
"Labeling their approach a "market-based system" to protect consumers and property owners, the authors of HR 3261 would require advertisers, credit card companies and other payment processors to stop providing ads or payment services to any site that a copyright or trademark holder claimed was "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property." No court would need to be involved unless the operator of the site filed a counter-notice asserting that it didn't fit the bill's definition of a dedicated infringer.
That definition is so broad, it could snare all sorts of cloud-based services, said Markham Erickson, executive director of the NetCoalition tech advocacy group. The problem starts with the bill's focus on Web "sites," which as a technical matter can be a single page within a domain. An eBay listing could be considered a "site," as could a Facebook timeline, a Flickr page or a Dropbox folder.
Making matters worse, the bill broadens the notion of what it means to be "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property." In addition to sites that are primarily designed or marketed for infringing uses, the bill's definition includes sites whose operators "avoid confirming a high probability" that they will be used to infringe or who had at any previous time promoted infringements.
According to Erickson, the only way for ad networks and payment processors to respond to a notification about a supposedly offending site would be to block service to the entire domain. Hence, "you can shut down YouTube, you can shut down internet commerce sites, you can shut down hosting sites" for infringements on just a fraction of their pages, Erickson said."
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/20 ... ernet.html
http://thehackernews.com/2011/12/tor-an ... -with.htmlTor anonymity will become illegal with SOPA acts ?
I expect AES & GPG will be forbidden next and every newborn will get an implant that reads thoughts and sends them to a local branch of "Ministry of Correct Thinking"!
Greetings!
[color=red][size=75][O]bdurate [R]ules [D]estroy [E]nthusiastic [R]ebels => [C]reative [H]umans [A]lways [O]pen [S]ource[/size][/color]
[b][color=green]Omnia mea mecum porto.[/color][/b]
[b][color=green]Omnia mea mecum porto.[/color][/b]
..Microsoft opposes it? I thought Microsoft ruled the world. Perhaps they could pull all US government licenses. I'm sure we'd all be safer.SFR wrote:http://thehackernews.com/2011/12/tor-an ... -with.htmlTor anonymity will become illegal with SOPA acts ?
I expect AES & GPG will be forbidden next and every newborn will get an implant that reads thoughts and sends them to a local branch of "Ministry of Correct Thinking"!
Greetings!
@jpeps:
Well, it seems that deep in his heart Bill Gates is a camouflaged warez lover.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/22/ce-o ... ed-videos/
Edit: I forgot to add:
Greetings!
Well, it seems that deep in his heart Bill Gates is a camouflaged warez lover.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/22/ce-o ... ed-videos/
Edit: I forgot to add:
Greetings!
Last edited by SFR on Mon 02 Jan 2012, 22:27, edited 1 time in total.
[color=red][size=75][O]bdurate [R]ules [D]estroy [E]nthusiastic [R]ebels => [C]reative [H]umans [A]lways [O]pen [S]ource[/size][/color]
[b][color=green]Omnia mea mecum porto.[/color][/b]
[b][color=green]Omnia mea mecum porto.[/color][/b]
see my commentsTor anonymity will become illegal with SOPA acts ?
http://puppylinux.info/topic/linuxmint- ... rch-engine
Aitch
- Sky Aisling
- Posts: 1368
- Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 23:02
- Location: Port Townsend, WA. USA
SOPA and What it Means to Users of this Forum?
Wonder if SOPA will apply to people's avatars?
Re: SOPA and What it Means to Users of this Forum?
Sky Aisling wrote:Wonder if SOPA will apply to people's avatars?
On some forum here in Sweden they have famous people as Avatars.
If the owner of that picture bark loud I guess the user is in deep trouble.
Ooops no it will be the owner of the forum that is in deep shit.
All Admins have to block any kind of jpg due to this blessing from the copyright friends.
But realistically they start out with copyrighted music on Youtube.
They will also clamp down on all clips from movies? and Commercial TV shows.
I feel unsure of how they will relate to all young artists singing covers.
The song as such is the artists but they sing something that they have
no right to sing. Only the owners of that copyright can give a yes or no.
Unless you pay a very high sum for being allowed to produce such on a
commercial basis like if you are a Radio Station on Internet instead of on air. Then you pay annually and give them lists on what music you played. To just sing others music would most likely not be allowed?
Privately maybe one are allowed to do it if those who listen are friends and it is not accessable by anybody outside the "circle of friends"
so maybe music will get moved to private clubs for sharing music?
if even that will get accepted by the law?
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though
not an ideal solution though
nooby
As I explained here
http://puppylinux.info/topic/is-copyrig ... #post-2594
All this 'stuff' is based upon a misapplication of the English Licensing law - it was based upon 'performers on a stage' in licensed premises - pubs
The definition of a performer was 'a person or persons performing an entertainment in the form of singing or dancing and employed for the entertainment of patrons'
There never was a statute requiring a license to perform, in English law, so, in legal phraseology...the law has no legs...it is useless
The CPS Copyright Protection Service never were authorised by statute to enforce against publicans, so acted, as a private body, as if they were the Crown Prosecution Service, whose letters they bandied about for effect
Just BS all of it! and used simply for extorting monies from the entertainment profession, ostensibly to protect them from theft of income, whilst STEALING their income!....!
Aitch
As I explained here
http://puppylinux.info/topic/is-copyrig ... #post-2594
All this 'stuff' is based upon a misapplication of the English Licensing law - it was based upon 'performers on a stage' in licensed premises - pubs
The definition of a performer was 'a person or persons performing an entertainment in the form of singing or dancing and employed for the entertainment of patrons'
There never was a statute requiring a license to perform, in English law, so, in legal phraseology...the law has no legs...it is useless
The CPS Copyright Protection Service never were authorised by statute to enforce against publicans, so acted, as a private body, as if they were the Crown Prosecution Service, whose letters they bandied about for effect
Just BS all of it! and used simply for extorting monies from the entertainment profession, ostensibly to protect them from theft of income, whilst STEALING their income!....!
Aitch
Americans have their laws and English their law and Swedish have their laws.
A total mess of it all Only future will tell what happens.
Not on topic: I am a reluctant Pessimist. Even when I fear the worst
then Reality rear it's ugly head and tell me I lacked the imagination to
really know how bad it really got in real life. My imagination could not
foresee how bad it did turn out in the end.
Sony Play Station? comes to my mind. They could load Linux on it
and play games that Sony did not get payed for. So now it is not possible
anymore.
I-pods? them could also have linux on them for a short while.
Not so anymore.
Netbooks and Laptops could have Linux on them.
For how long will that be allowed? Maybe a few year more
then they lock it out.
A total mess of it all Only future will tell what happens.
Not on topic: I am a reluctant Pessimist. Even when I fear the worst
then Reality rear it's ugly head and tell me I lacked the imagination to
really know how bad it really got in real life. My imagination could not
foresee how bad it did turn out in the end.
Sony Play Station? comes to my mind. They could load Linux on it
and play games that Sony did not get payed for. So now it is not possible
anymore.
I-pods? them could also have linux on them for a short while.
Not so anymore.
Netbooks and Laptops could have Linux on them.
For how long will that be allowed? Maybe a few year more
then they lock it out.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though
not an ideal solution though
https://www.eff.org/mention/sopapipa-down-not-out-yetAs the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) points out, SOPA for instance, contains a provision that would allow the government to target sites that are seen as providing advice or help on how to circumvent the law. Such an anti-circumvention provision would amount to unconstitutional prior restraint and would apply to U.S. sites as well.
- Sky Aisling
- Posts: 1368
- Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 23:02
- Location: Port Townsend, WA. USA
SOPA and What it Means to Users of this Forum?
Good point, nubc.
Here's a petition put out by the Democratic party (USA) to stop SOPA.
http://www.democrats.com/stop-the-corpo ... e-internet
Anyone seen a similar petition by the Repulican party (USA) or Libertarian party (USA)?
Please post here if you do. Thanks.
Here's a petition put out by the Democratic party (USA) to stop SOPA.
http://www.democrats.com/stop-the-corpo ... e-internet
Anyone seen a similar petition by the Repulican party (USA) or Libertarian party (USA)?
Please post here if you do. Thanks.
right....cause they're out playing golf or hunting. I hope you remembered to send a big check. That's what's important.starhawk wrote:Called my Senators and Congressperson (or at least, their offices) about SOPA and PIPA. Tip: all you have to do is say your name and your zipcode and that you won't vote for them if they vote for this cr*p. Do it fast, cuz those folks don't exactly have time to sit & chat.
edit: that wasn't really fair....they also attend sports events when not watching them on TV. What they definitely do NOT do is read the bills that they legislate.
Ah, yes...I forgot to link here, so short notice -
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=75217
see you Thursday!
Aitch
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=75217
see you Thursday!
Aitch