27 replies to this topic

[ThatJoeGuy]

Probably shouldn't post this here since it is politics and all but...

These laws could adversely effect our favorite dive club website.

For example: Lets say I made a video which compiled a bunch of my photos and had a background song that was currently popular, and then I posted a link of it here. If some not nice individual noticed my video, and found the link here, they could file to have the site blocked. No chance for appeal. Just BAM, site is gone.

Do some research. Speak up for what is right.

[WreckWench]

Joe if you have some fairly balanced links to this issue then please post them.

So are you saying the dive site has to police the songs being used in videos posted by members or the divesite is shut down?

If so we certainly need to know more.

[WreckWench]

These laws could adversely effect our favorite dive club website.

Thank you! Given the hundreds of dive groups and clubs out there...you just made my day! And I needed some 'day making'.

[rkymtwy]

I've already signed the petition and sent it to my representatives. There is just too much "control" in these bills.

[ThatJoeGuy]

I don't think I have seen any unbiased links about this.

How about a song with links at the end.



Or just attempt to use wikipedia, or click the censored google logo on the google home page. You'll find lots of info.

[ThatJoeGuy]

Or maybe you would like to see what Hitler thinks of these laws.

[sharkCrazy]

How about a song with links at the end.

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=1p-TV4jaCMk

I knew I was a geek before.....but the way my wife just looked at me as I laughed through that song confirms it!

[ScubaShafer]

Probably shouldn't post this here since it is politics and all but...

These laws could adversely effect our favorite dive club website.

For example: Lets say I made a video which compiled a bunch of my photos and had a background song that was currently popular, and then I posted a link of it here. If some not nice individual noticed my video, and found the link here, they could file to have the site blocked. No chance for appeal. Just BAM, site is gone.

Do some research. Speak up for what is right.

I'm trying to understand the concern here. So you condone stealing copyrighted materials?

[shadragon]

I'm trying to understand the concern here. So you condone stealing copyrighted materials?

The concern is the wording of the bill. It was written by lobbyists and is, to sum it up in a word, vague. It allows broad powers to remove web sites from the DNS listings, effectively removing them from the Internet if found in violation. However, the burden of proof to establish that is nebulous at best. Some are saying a mere accusation or suspicion from a copyright holder can empower the courts to act. Then the site owner must effectively prove their innocence in court to get their site back on line. So in the blink of an eye, YouTube, Picasa, FaceBook, Google, Bing, Yahoo, Wikipedia etc. could disappear.

Understand that every photo/video taken and every word written are automatically copyrighted. You (the author) have to actively place that photo in the public domain to remove it from copyright status or wait 50 years for it to expire naturally. With SOPA and PIPA, in the blink of an eye, the Internet will become an information desert. It would be akin to punishing someone with a shotgun blast to the knees for a jaywalking offence without clearing the sidewalk of other people first. It would get messy, very quickly. The worse damage would be caused to copyright holders themselves as they would then have to prove copyright ownership to a web site owner before their materials could be published online. How do you prove you took that photo? A deposition? Some sort of registry? Who will cover those costs? You can bet it will not be the site owners. Many web sites will simply not allow those materials to be published any more to avoid the whole mess. Others will just shut down.

The biggest issue is that the Internet goes beyond US borders and they would be blocking global traffic. The comparisons to the Great Firewall of China are apt.

There are sufficient laws on the books to handle this today. I won't comment on those as I would surely violate the TOS. However SOPA / PIPA would be the first step of establishing Internet Police. And that would be the thin end of the wedge as my Dad would say.

[Racer184]

It is no longer a matter of one crook making 1,000,000 illegal copies, it is now 1,000,000 people making 1 illegal copy.

The good intentions part of S.O.P.A. is to help writers, artists, authors, stop blatant copying like this.

I see lots of my work copied thousands of times, and sometimes it is credited to other people.

SingleDivers.com and my largest website are currently 'protected' by "section 230". We are not the creator or editor of the content, just providing the means for others to create content. Just as a newspaper does not write the classifed ads, you can not hold the newspaper accountable for a lemon car advertised in it, I don't want to be screwed for something a user does.

A manufacturer printing pages and assembling them into a book is not liable for intellectual theft by the 'author' of the book.

What does bother me is that many websites, like youtube, facebook, and a scuba related website that just went through a multi-year lawsuit, KNOW that some people are obsessed with bootlegging other people's work. Can they ban these people? Edit their postings? Well, if they do, then they might run the risk of losing their "section 230" protection if they become editors of the content.

Sites like youtube and facebook own everything you upload (read the fine print in your agreement with them). However, if it turns out to be illegally posted, then those websites hide behind "section 230" and say it's all your fault, no one can touch them. They are playing both sides of the field, and the creator of the work will always lose (under the current system).

Of the millions of videos on youtube with music, how many of them do you think took the time to license the music?

I do believe that something must be done; I also believe that we (society, government etc) absolutely must not hastily throw axes at the problem.

I am astonished that people think just because there is no copyright symbol, or the work is not 'registered' copyright that they can copy it all they want. The US copyright law says that the creator of the work has a copyright the moment that the work is created in fixed form.

[dive_sail_etc]

I won't repeat everything Shadragon posted; suffice to say my own research agrees with his conclusions. IMO there are already sufficient laws on state and federal books that cover copyright infringement, at home and internationally. I share Sha's opinion that the wording of the bill (admittedly I browsed various passages and did not peruse every single word) suggests this is more a power grab than a genuine attempt to protect ownership rights.

WRT Racer184's mention of the abuse of "Section 230" (of what? FCC regulations? Some federal copyright statute?): Point taken. Perhaps the better choice might be to amend and clarify said existing section rather than creating yet another law.

Full disclosure: Those familiar with me would likely attest I typically tend to be the skeptic regarding benign, well-intentioned government; please accept this as my 2.5psi...

[WreckWench]

Here is the actual Bill if anyone is interested in seeing it without an advertising based news slant to it.

http://thomas.loc.go...~c1125fbV56:b0:


Much of what I have read and heard does not appear to be true.

The link says it has timed out and I can't figure out the right search words... SOPA and/or PIPA did not return any results.