SOPA

[Senestrum]

If the content creator thinks there should be terms of use for whatever they made (including, but not limited to, paying them), then you should follow their fucking terms. This doesn't seem hard to comprehend.

[Alyakia]

If the content creator thinks there should be terms of use for whatever they made (including, but not limited to, paying them), then you should follow their fucking terms. This doesn't seem hard to comprehend.

Ok. That's nice.

So, what about SOPA?

[Saiwania]

Man, luckily this bill is dead. I was extremly pissed when i heard the SOPA bill until it died. Is the other bill still up?

SOPA is far from dead, Lamar Smith intends to resume its markup this February and there's a prominent pro-SOPA commercial on TV that aired today.

[Jolthig]

Man, luckily this bill is dead. I was extremly pissed when i heard the SOPA bill until it died. Is the other bill still up?

SOPA is far from dead, Lamar Smith intends to resume its markup this February and there's a prominent pro-SOPA commercial on TV that aired today.

I will be taking the opponet side. The SOPA will not pass!

[Galloism]

Yes, but I am using from a site which is legal and using torrents is not stealing cause somebody else posted in order that somebody can use the file.

I'm not talking about someone putting something out there for people to use for free. I'm talking about putting something out there that you are supposed to pay to use, and you use it and don't pay.

Copyright infringement.

Do I get a prize?

[Galloism]

It's also pretty dickish to support piracy...

That is irrelevant. Being a dick, in and of itself, is not against the rules here.

A fact which has kept me here for far longer than anyone here ever expected.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

To get around the wikipedia ban type: ?banner=none, to the end of the url

[Genivaria]

That is irrelevant. Being a dick, in and of itself, is not against the rules here.

A fact which has kept me here for far longer than anyone here ever expected.

You my friend are going on the Awesome Quotes thread.

[The Floridian Coast]

I'm not sure anyone would even remotely give a shit, but I wrote a research paper for Composition II back in early December, the main theme of which was the argument that looking at prior precedent, any form of "piracy" where the person is not selling the items in question or otherwise profiting from it can be deemed "fair use", it touches on SOPA and PIPA. For the sake of making this more accessible, I removed some shit like the title page and the works cited page, though kept the in text citations because they're there and it would be nonsensical not to have them. If anyone is interested in the works cited let me know, though I wasn't required to include URLs, and therefore didn't, and half this came from an academic database so you probably couldn't access it anyway.

The Protection of File Sharing Under Fair Use
Information is more easily accessed by this century’s generations than any people who lived before; especially through the internet, and the cultural and socioeconomic impact of such a free flow of ideas and media is enormous. Beyond the news sites, forums, social networking and emails, by the far the largest portion of the internet is peer-to-peer file sharing. A 2009 study on internet traffic documents that, varying by region, P2P activity constitutes anywhere between one half and two thirds of the entirety of the internet (Schulze and Mochalski 2). Some peer-to-peer networks are decentralized and others are hosted by servers all over the world, and all of them have attracted the attention of millions of internet users, enjoying the opportunity to have music, movies, and programs freely and readily available for personal use. Likewise, corporations and governments have taken notice, and some have taken strong action to combat what they deem to be online piracy – a massive infringement on the rights of intellectual property. More than a decade of battles within the court system, alongside a relentless digital arms race between innovative internet users and influential media companies, the legitimacy of file sharing is without a consensus; neither an ethical one nor a legal one.
Can millions of people be deemed criminals, or at least civilly liable for damages, just because of their choice to partake in free media? Should laws designed to prosecute those who illicitly profit selling the stolen or ripped-off work of others also affect a college student with a library of downloaded songs and movies on their computer? Is the current system so flawed that standing intellectual property law creates, in the words of one legal academic (Ross 55), “a generation of racketeers?” There certainly exists substantial evidence that file sharing is not nearly harmful as its corporate and political opponents would have people believe. In fact, it arguably laid the foundation for digital music, and may even promote innovation. It can be seen through empirical observation that products and services like IPods, ITunes, and Netflix came into existence amidst file sharing’s presence, rather than being stifled by it. Yet in order for this conflict to reach a reasonable resolution, both the ethics of intellectual property and copyright as well as the legal issues over it must be thoroughly analyzed. An insightful look must be taken at the consequences of intellectual property having equal legal status as tangible property; a goal that many opponents of file-sharing are tirelessly fighting towards. A summary of the current state of the clash between copyright and freedom of information, followed by a historical context of past issues and legal precedents set, will grant substantial legitimacy to the principle of fair use. This idea, that copyright should not over-extend its reach into the personal, not-for-profit use of media, is deserving of widespread social acceptance and more complete legal recognition.
Questions can be raised about what boundaries intellectual property should set, and what limits must be placed on intellectual property itself. Few would argue against giving credit where credit is due. Nearly any type of ethical ideal is supportive of recognition for the origin of an idea, and appreciation for the work and creativity put into an idea is indeed warranted. There is, for all intents and purposes, an ethical consensus that one deserves credit for their work. What is less than certain is a potential right for the owner of something intangible to restrict the usage of and benefit from their ideas by others. Lawyer and political theorist Stephan Kinsella offers an analogy regarding the implications of an idea having full ownership and legal force to back it up. If a person develops a new and creative method for digging a well, and then has strong intellectual property laws giving him control over others’ rights to use the method he developed, then he may demand payment from anyone who decides to dig their own well using his technique. This man is, under such laws, entitled to compensation for his idea’s use, even when a person is digging their own well on their own property, with their own materials. Such strength of IP laws, Kinsella asserts, does in essence grant the inventor of the well partial ownership over others’ land and others’ materials. After all, if he did not possess such ownership, then how could he dictate to others that they must have either his permission or pay him royalties for doing what they please with their own property? This irrational entitlement to the physical belongings of others is the consequence of unchecked IP law. (43 – 45)
Apply this towards the issue of file-sharing. Music, movies, books and related media certainly are the creations of those who made them, and all those who contributed to the creation thereof are entitled to recognition of their efforts, this much is clear. However, broad privileges granted by intellectual property law can under some legal interpretations result in similar partial ownership problems as discussed above. Consider that strictly upheld intellectual property laws would prohibit another person or entity from distributing copyrighted material across the internet, not only for infringement upon business at the expense of the owners, but also for solely personal use. Copyright holders would then hold partial ownership of the computers of millions. Not only that, they would have similar partial ownership over programs that are capable of distributing files, and partial ownership of the internet service providers which allow file-sharing to occur.
Another relevant ethical dilemma is the problem of contracts. The solution to issues of intellectual property and the rights of distribution may ostensibly be a system of contracts between the IP owners and those who purchase from them. Still, Kinsella explains that IP additionally disrupts the balance and fairness of contracts, arguing that “third parties, then, who are not parties to the contract and are not in privity with the contractual obligor and obligee, are not bound by the contractual relationship (47).” Once again relating this viewpoint to the issue at hand, file sharers are third parties. They may be distributors of media files, but they obtained these files secondhand from another distributor. Whatever contract the original distributor signed with the owner of the intellectual property is irrelevant to the file sharer. Yet IP law may in effect bind any person with interest in personal use of a media file to a contract they did not knowingly or willingly become a party to.
Perhaps a radical libertarian view like Kinsella’s goes too far in refuting the status quo, and a more moderate reform to intellectual property law than complete abolition could be implemented. Regardless, if a pragmatic position on these issues is to be taken, there must be recognition that some of the current copyright laws are themselves extreme. And recent trends lean in the direction of even more stringent and one-sided potential new laws regarding copyright and intellectual property.
Each year in the United States, there are numerous bills which are passed by Congress and signed into law by the President receiving scarce attention from the media; not every new law put into effect is as contentious as health care reform or economic stimulus. Yet two bills designed to combat “online piracy” have stirred up major controversy, and not along typical party lines. Security News Daily reports that this potential legislation could have sweeping global effects, and within the United States, effectively censor the internet. “DNS servers based in the U.S. would have to list a different set of network addresses from their foreign counterparts. They would in effect ‘see’ a different Internet from what their foreign counterparts see.” (Emspak) When Senator Patrick Leahy and Congressman Lamar Smith introduced, respectively, the PROTECT IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act, they may have well expected these strongly lobbied for bills to have passed with a mere token resistance at best. They and their colleagues did not foresee the populist backlash against these proposals, nor did they anticipate the fine details of these bills would be scrutinized and exposed - details which are unsettling to civil rights activists and concerned citizens. What is the rationale behind such opposition? Donny Shaw, a leader of the watchdog organization Open Congress, argues that these acts would give unprecedented abilities to the most powerful media conglomerates to shut down websites reliant on user-provided content. He points out such legislation "favors big companies with their own in-house patenting resources over independent inventors with limited resources", and thus has great potential to harm small business and technological entrepreneurs (Shaw).
Despite these pieces of legislation being deeply flawed, if not outright dangerous, the lawmakers supportive of these bills have not backed down. Naturally, Senator Leahy and his bill's co-sponsor Senator Hatch claim in a press release that their bill protects the millions of workers, favors the American consumer, and is a matter of “common sense” (Leahy). The grassroots movement Demand Progress made a stand against the financial might of the Chamber of Commerce and Motion Picture Association of America, the latter of which publicly condemned the citizens' movement as "a website that is content to ally itself with criminal enterprises that have a strong, direct, personal and commercial interest in continuing to steal from American creative workers and businesses" (MPAA). “Criminal enterprise” is a phrase draws connotations with the mafia and drug dealers, a label which should not be lightly given to advocates of an uncensored internet and freedom of information.
Julie L. Ross, a professor of legal research and writing at the Georgetown University Law Center, explains the frightening shift in civil and criminal law in favor of entertainment industry powers over the last few decades. This includes a six year long litigation campaign against individual file-sharers. (59) Additionally, criminal liability for copyright infringement has shifted from misdemeanor to felony charges, and fines have grown exponentially, and Ross warns that RICO (The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), "now augment[s] the existing civil and criminal copyright infringement remedies." (71)
One origin of popular peer-to-peer file sharing was Napster, which while short-lived, provided a paradigm for its successors and brought the idea of free media downloads into mainstream knowledge. The Recording Industry Association of America was quick to respond with litigation. However, before the era of lawsuits against individual file sharers and before they had significant legal leverage against internet service providers, some of their targets were the college campuses whose internet networks students used to share music through Napster.
The history of these lawsuits against college campuses is detailed by Bowling Green University Professors Lisa and Paul Cesarini, who describe how the RIAA’s initial lawsuits against Napster were shortly followed by Metallica (a heavy metal band especially outspoken against peer-to-peer file sharing) taking to court three universities on the basis that they were civilly liable because their networks had provided students access to file sharing. They explain how effective the act of litigation was, because “as a result, both Indiana University and Yale were dropped from the suit once that it was announced that Napster would be banned on those campuses (45).”
Universities continue to protect themselves against liability for file-sharing. The Cesarinis’ publication in the Journal of Technology Studies highlights the variety of tactics different universities have chosen, from packet shaping, a method of specifically detecting and blocking peer-to-peer traffic, used by many including Bowling Green (45-46), to the University of South Florida’s campaign to educate students on legal file sharing and enforcing an agreement which ultimately costs them $75,000 per year (52).
With such a financial burden placed on universities, there is a need to be aware of any existing legal precedents there might be to understand whether or not networks or distributors can truly be liable for their users’ actions. When there is no network to hold accountable, the recipient of legal challenges can be the distributors of the devices used for alleged copyright infringement. Before the time of file sharing, a similar controversy actually occurred with VCRs and videotaping. The aforementioned publication recalls the precedent set in the case Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U S. 417 (1984). This dispute between companies, which was eventually decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, was rooted in Universal City Studios claiming to be victims of copyright infringement, because as television manufacturers, they did not accept that VCR users had the right to videotape what was broadcast on their televisions. Sony, a manufacturer of VCRs, was chosen as the most liable candidate for litigation, as they could not bring suit against the millions of individuals who participated in videotaping. The Supreme Court firmly rejected any liability on Sony’s part. Further, they actually deemed videotaping of television shows to not be copyright infringement at all, as it fell under the legal protection of fair use (Cesarini 47).
Since that 1984 decision, the legality of videotaping was settled. The technological progression from VCRs to DVRs did not change that fact, and there is no ethical contention over the recording of television shows. The fact is that the videotaping did not destroy the industry of television broadcasting, and file sharing has not destroyed the music or movie industry by any means either. If something as now unanimously accepted as videotaping became a commonplace legal right under the principle of fair use, is it really such an unconventional idea that file sharing deserves the same protection?
What is clear that file sharing and its relation to copyright and intellectual property will not be settled easily or quickly. However, when the myths of file sharing are stripped back and the full context of these technological disputes are viewed with objectivity, it is clear that current laws are strongly biased in favor of the most wealthy and powerful intellectual property holders. Individuals, universities, small businesses, internet service providers, and innovators have paid unnecessary penalties because of this situation. There is an urgent need to prevent this disparity from thriving any longer. Fair use is both an ethical principle and legal protection, meant to defend those lacking in power and influence. In terms of civil rights in the digital age, it is imperative that fair use develops into and remains a sacrosanct value.

In case anyone is wondering, I got an 88 on it.

[Alyakia]

A fact which has kept me here for far longer than anyone here ever expected.

You my friend are going on the Awesome Quotes thread.

Oh christ please for the love of fuck don't idolize them for their "i'm totally a dick how cool!" posts. It'll just make them hyperactive.

[Galloism]

You my friend are going on the Awesome Quotes thread.

Oh christ please for the love of fuck don't idolize them for their "i'm totally a dick how cool!" posts. It'll just make them hyperactive.

In order to be hyperactive, I would have to become "active" first. As I am currently chilling with a beer and quite relaxed, "active" is a stretch, unless posting on NSG is considered "active", in which case I can probably be considered active 24 hours per day, because I continue breathing.

[Qazox]

Man, luckily this bill is dead. I was extremly pissed when i heard the SOPA bill until it died. Is the other bill still up?

SOPA and PIPA AREN'T DEAD....

There are still debates to be had on them later next week (PIPA) and in February (SOPA).

The only way these bills are DEAD is if Congress doesn't vote for them.

[Qazox]

SOPA is the equivalent of using a S.W.A.T. team to stop a jaywalker.

The idea behind SOPA is well intentioned; but the means of enforcing it is the problem.

[Israeli Union of Soviet Socialist States]

Heyy guise! I'm preserving the internet. Download this file before it is taken off of the internet. It has the IP addresses of important websites. Unfortunately, Nation States may have to be spared but this is all I have: http://www.mediafire.com/?s4xgzla1olx23h7

[Jolthig]

Man, luckily this bill is dead. I was extremly pissed when i heard the SOPA bill until it died. Is the other bill still up?

SOPA and PIPA AREN'T DEAD....

There are still debates to be had on them later next week (PIPA) and in February (SOPA).

The only way these bills are DEAD is if Congress doesn't vote for them.

I havent been paying attention much to the news...
And I get it now.

[Galloism]

Heyy guise! I'm preserving the internet. Download this file before it is taken off of the internet. It has the IP addresses of important websites. Unfortunately, Nation States may have to be spared but this is all I have: http://www.mediafire.com/?s4xgzla1olx23h7

Suspicious link is suspicious.

[Alyakia]

Heyy guise! I'm preserving the internet. Download this file before it is taken off of the internet. It has the IP addresses of important websites. Unfortunately, Nation States may have to be spared but this is all I have: http://www.mediafire.com/?s4xgzla1olx23h7

Suspicious link is suspicious.

it's funny because even if it is IP addresses most people won't know what the fuck a host file is unless he expects everyone to copy and paste

[Qazox]

And there's only 57 minutes until the blackout is over

[Jolthig]

And i think Ron Smith proposed this bill?

[Galloism]

Suspicious link is suspicious.

it's funny because even if it is IP addresses most people won't know what the fuck a host file is unless he expects everyone to copy and paste

It's even funnier when you consider that changing your DNS server is a trivial task and that there are plenty of DNS servers outside the US.

No doubt, the free market fairy will give us even more if something like this were to pass.

[Azrael]

[Jolthig]

(Image)

^This

[Galloism]

(Image)

You did not win an internet, but you get an honorable mention.

[Namabia]

Firmly opposed to SOPA. Even NSG opposes it. I am shocked. *Makes personal note to remember this thread.*

I did black out my sigg just for this.

Anyways, the bill will be defeated as there is little public support for it. Even if the bill was passed Americans, in our rebellious nature, would out-rightly ignore the government. So would Google, as they have refused to give over personal information of its users to the United States government. At least, that's what I've been told.

[Vurtunia]

Even if this passes woulden't there just be like an underground internet or something?