So. What is your personal interpratation of the SOPA and PIPA acts?

[marharth]

How does Google profit from piracy?

Ad revenue generated by traffic to and relating to the pirated content.

They profit from literally everything.

 

You can't really single out piracy there.

[Ghogiel]

How does Google profit from piracy?

Ad revenue generated by traffic to and relating to the pirated content.

Youtube and the like.

[FnimonSni]

Kudos to Marharth! :thumbsup:

Why can't the internet just stay the way it is?

I'm sure that people are ready to support thier favorit musicians!

 

Also, sopa in my language means ''garbage''. :whistling:

[RZ1029]

Hey guys... I heard that there were some pirates in Somalia. Why don't we go delete all the DNS entries that lead to the--- oh... wrong kind.

 

Anyways, even with the original DNS thing in the bill, you can STILL get to the website, no problem. Just use the IP address. No more www.google.com, just use 74.125.45.106 (my local Google server). It won't ruin the internet, just re-structure it. Instead of having the pirates, the lolcat-ers, the youtube-ites, and the forum trolls, you'll have pirates... and the odd knitting forum, so long as they don't link to any sort of copyright knitting pattern from a major knitting corporation.

 

Essentially all you'll do is categorize harmless users as pirates, who'll continue doing what they've been doing for eons: Whatever the - they want to. On the internet, you're not a person, you're a number. Around town, you're known as 192.168.1.1 or something of the likes. Around the world? Who knows, between DHCP, proxy servers, MAC spoofing, etc. you can be anyone, anywhere.

 

In a way, I almost wish this bill would pass, if nothing but for the fact that people would have to become more computer-savvy to continue their cat video perusing and the such.

 

However, I do take issue with handing over the reigns to corporations and being like 'Yep... have at it guys'. We already have the Digital Millennium Copyrights Act from back in... 98? I think. It provides all that the company needs to handle SERIOUS cases of copyright infringement. Sure, you can't hit every little thing, because it's the friggen internet, for every website you take down, six pop up. You target the major issues and cut your losses on the rest. I'll feel sorry for Hollywood losing money when they quit clearing record numbers at box offices.

 

TL;DR (aka, the Call of Duty Explanation)--

 

STFU and GTFO, Hollywood. QQ moar.

[AutoPumpaction]

I think Videogames will go a similar way as movies did. They show them in some kind of comercial or pay TV. Entertainment industry will buy up games and you can play them, for a while maybee, and they add comercial adds to it. I could imagine that.

 

 

How does Google profit from piracy?

Ive seen a Google documention a few years ago.

 

Reporter: So what do you search on google.

Student: Well i search for a lot of things, iam realy google addictet. I search for Porn, and... girls i wanna know things about. And Porn....

 

So i would say is more Porn than Google addictet, but thats the point. Searchrequests for copyrightet material is a mayor piece in google requests.

And also, what would youtube be without all that copyright material? Nothing. No one cares about crap as Videoblogs about Haircuts and self-expressionism. It was designed to be allround entertainment from the word go. One of the most visited channels was the Family Guy channel, what would be youtube today without all this copyright material as music and entertainment?

[marharth]

They also get large search requests for other illegal things. That does not mean Google would protest laws against those things.

 

I am also tired of people saying that copyrighted materiel made YouTube. Try to find a lot of copyrighted materiel on YouTube now.

 

The reason there is a false impression that copyrighted materiel is what made YouTube is because copyrighted things were uploaded to it, and YouTube was one of the first video sites that became popular.

 

Copyrighted things got uploaded because YouTube was popular, not the other way around.

[Marxist ßastard]

PROTIP: It isn't illegal for Youtube to have copyrighted material. Most is either licensed or fair-use.

 

And for some infringing material, the actual copyright owners have no problem with it, but a third-party can order a DMCA take-down; SOPA only makes this worse.

[marharth]

PROTIP: It isn't illegal for Youtube to have copyrighted material. Most is either licensed or fair-use.

 

And for some infringing material, the actual copyright owners have no problem with it, but a third-party can order a DMCA take-down; SOPA only makes this worse.

Currently I don't think copyrighted material is a problem at all on YouTube.

 

All music is pretty much controlled by the copyright owners, and a few TV shows and movies purposely upload clips as advertisement.

 

With Vevo, Hulu, and Netflix copyright infringement is not a serious issue on YouTube anymore. A lot of the time piracy/infringement is a service problem.

Edited January 20, 2012 by marharth

[AutoPumpaction]

Youtube got sold a few times since they licence copyrightet material, because since then they operate in the red. Content made it, content break it.

And there is no such thing as "fair-use" for content material. Thats an urban legend. Saw it many times that people wrote in the describtion "Hey i don't have the copyrights of this but warner bros. has and i just made some kind of quoting thing lol" . Even for a few secounds establishing shot music, its get all shutted down.

[Marxist ßastard]

And there is no such thing as "fair-use" for content material. Thats an urban legend.

And this is the sort of ignorance I'm talking about.

 

Fair use isn't an "urban legend"; it's been recognized in common law since Gyles v Wilcox in 1740. There it was decided that an abridgment of a copyrighted work is legally a new, original work if the abridging author shows significant effort – so remixes have 270 years of legal precedent. The concept was refined by Folsom v Marsh in 1841, which advises to consider "the nature and objects of the selections made; the quantity and value of the materials used; and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work." That remains the most popular judicial opinion on fair use to this day. Similar language was suggested in the Copyright Act of 1976:

 

17 U.S.C. § 107

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Or as explained in the General Guide to the Copyright Act of 1976:

 

Although fair use (a doctrine developed by the courts) was not included in any copyright statute prior to the 1976 Act, the concept is firmly established in everyday usage. The concept of "fair use" is not susceptible to exact definition. Generally speaking, however, it allows copying without permission from, or payment to, the copyright owner where the use is reasonable and not harmful to the rights of the copyright owner.

 

Section 107 is somewhat vague since it would be difficult to prescribe precise rules to cover all situations. It refers to "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" and sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. These are:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
3. The nature of the copyrighted work; and
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

These criteria are not necessarily the sole criteria that a court may consider. Section 107 makes it clear that the factors a court shall consider shall "include" these four; section 101, the definitional section of the new law, states that the terms "including" and "such as" are illustrative and not limitative.

 

My point: "Copyrighted" does not mean "illegal". It could be fair use. You could have the original author's permission. Or you could be the original author. There's a whole host of legal tests which must be applied to determine whether a use is infringing or not. And SOPA gets rid of every single one.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Marxist ßastard