Arthmoor Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) So a large corporation can take down a entire website that has links to copyrighted materiel or not?If the copyrighted material belongs to that large corporation, yes (This is horribly oversimmplified btw). Same as if a site was hosting your mod without your permission. Sure, the corporation has more money to fight the fight, but the law doesn't care about that. It only cares that you're not filing a case you don't have standing for. Even the DMCA has provisions within it to punish false filings. This is what is confusing me. So many people are claiming that this bill is harmless and the other side says it can destroy the internet.Nature of politics. The truth is somewhere in between. It probably isn't totally harmless, but it also isn't about to destroy the internet either. To make this clear as well, you are saying that this bill will attempt to stop piracy how? What are the legal tools you are talking about and how will that help?It attempts to stop piracy by allowing rights holders to bring action against websites that are profiting from their property. Cut off the flow of money, it becomes less desirable for these kinds of sites to continue operating. Of note, the DNS provision which caused so many initial problems is not even in the current bill anymore. So the idea that Congress is just flying into this utterly blind and ignorant is silly. They *DO* listen, and there have been changes made, but you'd be hard pressed to notice that with all the noise that's being made. Edited January 19, 2012 by Arthmoor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 So a large corporation can take down a entire website that has links to copyrighted materiel or not?If the copyrighted material belongs to that large corporation, yes (This is horribly oversimmplified btw). Same as if a site was hosting your mod without your permission. Sure, the corporation has more money to fight the fight, but the law doesn't care about that. It only cares that you're not filing a case you don't have standing for. Even the DMCA has provisions within it to punish false filings. This is what is confusing me. So many people are claiming that this bill is harmless and the other side says it can destroy the internet.Nature of politics. The truth is somewhere in between. It probably isn't totally harmless, but it also isn't about to destroy the internet either. To make this clear as well, you are saying that this bill will attempt to stop piracy how? What are the legal tools you are talking about and how will that help?It attempts to stop piracy by allowing rights holders to bring action against websites that are profiting from their property. Cut off the flow of money, it becomes less desirable for these kinds of sites to continue operating. Of note, the DNS provision which caused so many initial problems is not even in the current bill anymore. So the idea that Congress is just flying into this utterly blind and ignorant is silly. They *DO* listen, and there have been changes made, but you'd be hard pressed to notice that with all the noise that's being made.What exactly can the right holders do? Could a corporation take action against a site for something extremely minor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) What exactly can the right holders do? Could a corporation take action against a site for something extremely minor?Rights holders can file for relief with the US Attorney General's office. Given this would be a federal action, it's highly unlikely that the AG would bother with something "extremely minor". This legislation isn't designed to go after individual users with their blogs and stuff. It's target are foreign websites who are primarily trafficking in pirated good and counterfeit products. We're talking about cases that would run into the millions of dollars. Such as China pirating millions of copies of Windows, or *not allowed* hosting nothing but torrents and/or torrent links for music and movies. If I were to go to one of these places and grab 5 songs, then put them up on a site in Russia for free, they'd probably not spend significant amounts of time caring. If instead I put 50,000 songs up and began charging $2/ea for them, then they'd care. What this is not going to turn into is a case where I could send a strongly worded legal demand to Nexus to remove a mod from the site that I didn't like and then get the site kicked off the net if they didn't cooperate. Edited January 19, 2012 by Arthmoor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Trouble is, a lot of the cases that ARE prosecuted, is also going to depend on just whom is filing the complaint. If one of the big hollywood studios suddenly decides it's rights are being infringed on by folks posting movie clips, or whathaveyou, on YouTube....... you can bet something is gonna give there. And it ain't gonna be Hollywood...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I wouldn't be so sure. A frivolous action against Google would end badly for Hollywood. Google isn't the weakling they were back in the 1990s. Their IPO turned them into a world powerhouse rivaled in influence only by Microsoft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Why are some big companies and a ton of rather popular people not supporting it? It doesn't seem to me like every single one of them could be misinformed. Google is huge as you said, I don't see them protesting this for no reason. Also pretty popular youtubers like TotalBiscuit don't like it (he also went to law school.) So if there is nothing to be afraid of why are people risking their money and such to protest it? Surely every single one of these corporations and people can't just be misinformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Why are some big companies and a ton of rather popular people not supporting it? It doesn't seem to me like every single one of them could be misinformed.Because, in the vast number of cases, they didn't bother to read the bill. They're reacting to hearsay spread by others. Exaggerations and propaganda planted by those who profit from piracy. Google is huge as you said, I don't see them protesting this for no reason. Also pretty popular youtubers like TotalBiscuit don't like it (he also went to law school.)Google as a whole profits immensely from piracy. They know this. Common sense tells you they have to be aware that their sites are infested with unauthorized material. They don't want to contend with the possibility they could be held liable for it, sort of like MegaVirus. So they lobby against it, to protect their revenue stream. So if there is nothing to be afraid of why are people risking their money and such to protest it? Surely every single one of these corporations and people can't just be misinformed.Actually they can. Mass media in the US has a strong bias in favor of left-wing issues, which leads to media coverage being badly skewed in one direction. All this crap with OWS? "Hate the man and the corporation he runs"? That sort of thing is why all these places are so thoroughly wrong. Unfortunately there's no possible way I could ever hope to prove all of this, because very few are willing to listen to the argument without assuming people like me are just cranks. Which, IMO, is the real ugly truth of censorship. The ridicule of opposing viewpoints to the extent they cease to be presented. Or worse. Get you savaged by Anonymous for daring to hold an opinion on issues like this they don't agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisnpuppy Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The issue isn't the anti-piracy stuff per say. The issues are the vagueness of the Bill's language that would allow the Federal Government far greater rights to shutting down internet sites. The problem is that when a bill is left vague...then a wide range of interpretations are made and allowed by the judicial system. Piracy in the bill is not as well defined as you may think, from an initial viewing. This is why many huge companies are against the bill...and in their words, "the current bill AS WRITTEN." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 How does Google profit from piracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 How does Google profit from piracy?Ad revenue generated by traffic to and relating to the pirated content. 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