ding dong sopa dead

[Paul Markham]

50 SOPA replies. Supporters v Pirate supporters.

There will be another one along soon, just like buses.

What a load of shit. I am against piracy AND this bill.

Also, one might take notes from pirates who have improved the delivery method and user experience. People are paying for these file lockers even after choosing not to pay for your websites. If you offered a delivery method and price they found equally agreeable maybe they'd give that money to you.

So maybe you can come up with an idea that will work to stop pirates.

I understand the price argument and it has grounds. This is the model.

Buy cheap content, DVD stuff and old stuff being sold for rock bottom prices.



Do away with all marketing. No affiliates, no traffic merchants, etc. Then sell packages on a $1 to $5 price scale. Let's say 20 Gigs for $1 and 100 Gigs for $5. Of course this pricing would need adjusting to suit

So what would be your job online?

Piracy effects everyone working in online porn except those pirating and earning from it. It effects affiliates, ad sellers, traffic brokers, site owners and billing companies, except those like Paypal.

Because it brings down the value of the products sold. This has hurt online porn, music, films and many more. Are films made today for a quick killing or to produce master pieces that are timeless, cost money and need a long time to bring a return. Or need a high profit of one, to enable a gamble on another?

Great post mynameisjim

[DWB]

File lockers are popular because they offer a better delivery method? ROFL

If you like stealing stuff or getting stuff for free, just admit it, I don't have a problem with that. It's when people try to make this into some sort of complicated argument regarding business models and free speech is when it gets silly.

Maybe I just hang around honest people in real life, but everyone I know who torrents content just says they do it because it's free. I never argue with them or even have a problem with them because at least they are being honest. If you like free stuff and there is a legal loophole to get what you want, go ahead and do it, but don't try to make it out like doing so makes you some sort of future-savvy businessman or freedom fighter who is fighting for all of our freedom in the digital age.

If you want to fight for freedom, go ahead and do it. But torrenting the latest season of Dexter because you are too poor to afford Showtime or the DVD box set doesn't make you the next MLK.

At least be honest with yourself. That's really my only issues with this whole debate, the people who fool themselves into thinking they are part of something larger in order to rationalize their own theft. There are certain things I can't afford like yachts and super cars, but if I could get them for free by stealing with no repercussion, I just might do it. But at least I would admit that I just stole them, I wouldn't weave some convoluted Robin Hood type argument to rationalize my theft.

Excellent post Jim.

[stocktrader23]

So maybe you can come up with an idea that will work to stop pirates.

No I can't and neither can industries with much more money to spend on the problem than porn. People keep yelling that you can't compare porn to games / movies / whatever but they are missing the point entirely. It is the new delivery methods and price points that sucked up all of the customers that are available. If someone did something with porn that addressed price and experience they would see the benefits. This is already being done with the DVD sites that were $8.95 per month, easy to browse and hassle free.

Again, it might be something completely different or it might be something damn near the same. I guess we'll have to wait on Manwin to do it because it seems not many others care to even try to break away from their $29.95 per month gameplan.

I understand the price argument and it has grounds. This is the model.

Buy cheap content, DVD stuff and old stuff being sold for rock bottom prices.



Do away with all marketing. No affiliates, no traffic merchants, etc. Then sell packages on a $1 to $5 price scale. Let's say 20 Gigs for $1 and 100 Gigs for $5. Of course this pricing would need adjusting to suit

So what would be your job online?

First of all, I would do the same thing I've always done. Until you can pirate the user experience of talking to a real person webcams will always sell. Second, just because the price point goes down does not mean traffic is not required. It might be purchased directly or it might be revshare of small purchases for life but someone will take all the traffic they can get. The cost of porn content is so tiny in comparison to most things, it's not like you need to be a multi millionaire to do something non standard.

Piracy effects everyone working in online porn except those pirating and earning from it. It effects affiliates, ad sellers, traffic brokers, site owners and billing companies, except those like Paypal.

Sure it does, and if they ever figure out how to get rid of it sensibly it will be a great day.

Because it brings down the value of the products sold. This has hurt online porn, music, films and many more. Are films made today for a quick killing or to produce master pieces that are timeless, cost money and need a long time to bring a return. Or need a high profit of one, to enable a gamble on another?

The entertainment industry has actually grown during all of this "devastating piracy", they just don't like to tell you that.

[nico-t]

I don't buy into the whole "government censorship" aspect of it.

Doesnt matter if you buy it or not, but it's the truth.

Government uses arguments that are popular amongst a group of people to push through their agenda of control and money. They don't give a fuck about your content or any other.

Example: argument 'safety' -> scared people fall for it -> patriot act - real argument 'control'.
This is no different, this would be the first step to control the internet. And it will happen, not now but in the near future, because when our friendly leaders want it it will go through no matter what.

[Paul Markham]

No I can't and neither can industries with much more money to spend on the problem than porn.

They did and the politicians didn't like it. The next one will do better. This is like losing one battle in a war. The was isn't over yet.

People keep yelling that you can't compare porn to games / movies / whatever but they are missing the point entirely. It is the new delivery methods and price points that sucked up all of the customers that are available. If someone did something with porn that addressed price and experience they would see the benefits. This is already being done with the DVD sites that were $8.95 per month, easy to browse and hassle free.

If everyone did that it would cost everyone a lot of money. Because it wouldn't increase the number of customers enough to cover the loss of profit. If one site does it and picks up lost customers from other site it works. If everyone does it, then it drops to $4.95, then $2.95 and so on.

If webcams do the same, that will hurt you. And as more sites go to the free webcam model, again this will hurt your income. At the moment you benefit. Sell traffic from piracy sites to webcam and dating sites and you're in the profit margin. Those still left in the pre recorded porn part of the industry are suffering. All of them.

Because it brings down the numbers of people buying, adopt your price method and it will bring the revenue crashing down. Every guy downloading from a piracy is a potential customer. Maybe not today because of age, but he will grow up. Maybe not for $30 a month because of his income. Price it for $5 in his country only or similar countries with a similar economy.

All this has hit everyone, site owners, affiliates, designers, content producers, etc. Even those who sell traffic to webcams. Because it's enforcing the belief that it should be free. So when MFC and Chaturbate pop up, they get loads of freeloads who love watching girls live. When the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th pop up. Your traffic sales will be worth less and less.

You can't build an industry in a community where the people think it should be free because it's "online".

Sure it does, and if they ever figure out how to get rid of it sensibly it will be a great day.

So just be honest and don't come up with ridiculous excuses for hating anti piracy laws. Just say "This is the way it is today. And I have to live in the world as it is. Not as it should be."

The entertainment industry has actually grown during all of this "devastating piracy", they just don't like to tell you that.

So the DVD shops closing are not being effected by piracy? DVD sales have plummeted that was part of the industries income. I can assure you if they were making more they wouldn't be campaigning to have piracy shut down.

Anyway it's a stupid argument. Maybe I should pirate your product because you make more money than I think you should. OK that's right, you're not a victim, you're part of the victimising brigade.

[Paul Markham]

Doesnt matter if you buy it or not, but it's the truth.

Government uses arguments that are popular amongst a group of people to push through their agenda of control and money. They don't give a fuck about your content or any other.

Example: argument 'safety' -> scared people fall for it -> patriot act - real argument 'control'.
This is no different, this would be the first step to control the internet. And it will happen, not now but in the near future, because when our friendly leaders want it it will go through no matter what.

Rubbish.

I lived most of my life before we had the free Internet guarding or backs. During that time I saw a controlled press bring down a President and a UK Government. Watched it stop a war and reveal so many scandals, corrupt officials and scum that the list is too long. Even in the days of the Internet they still reveal scandals and corruptions. The cricketers now in jail because of the News Of The World, the politicians in jail because of the Guardian. Both in last 12 months.

Was it the controlled media who exposed Bush and his war mongering or the Internet? It was both, but they still can't muzzle the media, so have no fear they won't muzzle the Internet.

You're dead right, control will come. But it won't be that bad for those who abide by the law. For those who don't. They will suffer.

[seeandsee]

they will pass some similar law later

[PornoMonster]

Wikipedia, Reddit plan blackout in SOPA protest

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/16/tech...edia/index.htm

[DamianJ]

Wikipedia, Reddit plan blackout in SOPA protest

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/16/tech...edia/index.htm

That must mean wikipedia are pro-piracy, right?

Sigh

[Operator]

Sopa will face the Paraiyar

[NewNick]

That must mean wikipedia are pro-piracy, right?

Sigh

No - it means that wiki are on the same side as all the other companies that dont actually produce any unique IP.

If the peeps running wiki had to make a return on the money invested in producing a product they might have a different view on the matter.

Wiki is not a business that has to sell its wares after investing resource in r & d and production. It is free to join the pathetic band of internet hippies that really need to grow up.

Wiki does not suffer from piracy.

I'm not sure why that whole concept is so difficult to grasp; and I am absolutley certain that having your own funds on the line concentrates ones thoughts on the matter.

[Half man, Half Amazing]

This just in Chuckie Cheese to protest SOPA.

This was the final piece in proving Damian right. If any company is against SOPA that makes you right Damian because clearly those companies are wayyyy smarter than the companies that are for SOPA.

SMH. At times I find your comments interesting, other times you sound like one of the sheep commenters on TorrentFreak or Wjunction. Peaks and valleys my friend.

[Operator]

Needs a loud complaining orchestrated chorus

[DamianJ]

This just in Chuckie Cheese to protest SOPA.

This was the final piece in proving Damian right. If any company is against SOPA that makes you right Damian because clearly those companies are wayyyy smarter than the companies that are for SOPA.

SMH. At times I find your comments interesting, other times you sound like one of the sheep commenters on TorrentFreak or Wjunction. Peaks and valleys my friend.

Yes, make it personal. That makes sense.

You are a pornographer that wants the government to be able to censor the internet and you can't see what is wrong with that picture?

If Paul Markham and Robbie are for something, I think my default position would be to be against it.

But, knock yourself out.

You think breaking DNS is a good idea. OK. Cool.

I would defend to the death your right to want the government to be able to censor the internet.

Bless you. It's really the desperately close to failure people that think this will actually stop piracy. It's a sign of the desperate.

Work out how to sell content in this day and age, don't wish it was 10 years ago. It isn't. And it will never be.

xoxoxo

[tony286]

No I can't and neither can industries with much more money to spend on the problem than porn. People keep yelling that you can't compare porn to games / movies / whatever but they are missing the point entirely. It is the new delivery methods and price points that sucked up all of the customers that are available. If someone did something with porn that addressed price and experience they would see the benefits. This is already being done with the DVD sites that were $8.95 per month, easy to browse and hassle free.

Again, it might be something completely different or it might be something damn near the same. I guess we'll have to wait on Manwin to do it because it seems not many others care to even try to break away from their $29.95 per month gameplan.



First of all, I would do the same thing I've always done. Until you can pirate the user experience of talking to a real person webcams will always sell. Second, just because the price point goes down does not mean traffic is not required. It might be purchased directly or it might be revshare of small purchases for life but someone will take all the traffic they can get. The cost of porn content is so tiny in comparison to most things, it's not like you need to be a multi millionaire to do something non standard.



Sure it does, and if they ever figure out how to get rid of it sensibly it will be a great day.



The entertainment industry has actually grown during all of this "devastating piracy", they just don't like to tell you that.

actually it hasnt grown if you compare dollars to dollars. it has shrunk. they sold less tickets but they cost more so the numbers look like they are growing and they arent.

[kane]

actually it hasnt grown if you compare dollars to dollars. it has shrunk. they sold less tickets but they cost more so the numbers look like they are growing and they arent.

They are also making and releasing more movies. To me if you have to make more product and charge more for it just to make the same amount of money that you were once making it is not a good sign.

[PornoMonster]

That must mean wikipedia are pro-piracy, right?

Sigh

Here is a Great Interview with Wikipedia, on Exactly why they are doing this.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/17/tech/w...html?hpt=hp_t3

[DamianJ]

Here is a Great Interview with Wikipedia, on Exactly why they are doing this.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/17/tech/w...html?hpt=hp_t3

I know why they are doing it. I was mocking the fuckstick idiots that say that anyone against SOPA is pro-piracy.

[Trend]

SOPA lives?and MPAA calls protests an "abuse of power"

Full Article

As for SOPA, it's hardly dead?as some news outlets claimed this weekend. While House Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has expressed reservations about bringing the bill to a vote without "consensus," House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) is moving ahead with plans to mark up SOPA and move it out of committee. The most controversial bit, DNS blocking of "rogue" sites, will be removed from the bill.

"We will continue to bring together industry representatives and Members to find ways to combat online piracy," he said in an announcement today. "Markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act is expected to resume in February."

[Operator]

But the domain system is so strong?

[nico-t]

You are a pornographer that wants the government to be able to censor the internet and you can't see what is wrong with that picture?

If Paul Markham and Robbie are for something, I think my default position would be to be against it.

it are the dinosaurs who are stuck in 1997 who desperately try to grasp anything that, in their naive mind, will bring those times back, it's pretty sad.

[Paul Markham]

Here is a Great Interview with Wikipedia, on Exactly why they are doing this.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/17/tech/w...html?hpt=hp_t3

Well he's not 100% right is he?

Wikipedia isn't a site dedicated to freedom. So doesn't fall into that category.

They can talk about Pirate Bay as much as the like. They just can't link to it.

If the law works as it should, there won't be any links to follow.

As for following the money, maybe the interviewer should of pressed him on this as it was his solution.

You are a pornographer that wants the government to be able to censor the internet and you can't see what is wrong with that picture?

If Paul Markham and Robbie are for something, I think my default position would be to be against it.

So what is wrong with it?

Consider you live and have lived in a world where nearly everything published offline is censored. Can you tell me the websites that brought down a US President, UK Government, shamed the UK Government with the expenses scandal, put politicians and cricketers into prison and today are getting their asses kicked for not censoring what they were doing?

Censorship is required online as well as offline. Without it the publication of child porn, snuff, brutal real rape scenes, etc would be legal. Is that something you would encourage?

And please no debate about the act being illegal, because it shows a lack of understanding.

Yes nico-t what a stupid idea of going back to a time when piracy was a cottage industry and no threat.

[DamianJ]

There's no point discussing it with you Paul. You think government censorship is good. I don't. It'd be like an atheist trying to persuade a born-again Christian god is bad

I defend to the death your right to think that trusting the government to censor the internet is a good thing for the porn business.

[gideongallery]

Gideon, I have you on ignore but in quotes I can see your inane drivel. The penalties for filing a bogus DMCA claim are not just a charge of perjury, since this happens between individuals the penalties are usually civil matters resulting in losing your case ,since there's often a counter notice in place necessitating a court proceeding, to being found liable for monetary damages. You should be on here trolling for the undoing of tax laws since they also require you to swear under penalty of perjury when filing tax returns.

http://targetlaw.com/consequences-of...kedown-request

Furthermore part of the DMCA wording for takedown notices is "I have a good faith belief that" blah blah blah...so there is a distinction between bogus and innocent mistakes. Making a mistake on a DMCA or your tax return is not perjury just because you made a mistake, you have to have specific knowledge contrary to your action.

But you should ask the EFF and the Ukrainian pirates to take it easy sticking their hand up your ass to make you talk.

there is no good faith belief excuse of copyright infringement

That by definition is unbalanced.

A wrongful accusation does as much damage to innocent company as an "accidental" infringement (believing it fair use when it not).

[gideongallery]

I don't buy into the whole "government censorship" aspect of it. You use material that is not yours or you don't have permission to use, your site is blocked. Period. Licensing deals/contracts were created for this very reason. In the real world, if you walk into a store and steal something that is not yours, you go to jail, or at the very least are arrested and have to pay a fine. You are not eve allowed to borrow it and display it for a while unless you have permission to do so. Don't see a big difference. In fact, the real world is worse, and we don't see people up in arms about shoplifting charges and how they are censoring their shopping experience by now allowing them to shoplift.

And the "false claims" argument is simply laughable. Guess what happens if you file a false police report? Yea, you get into trouble. Same thing applies here.

The problem is easy to solve. Don't load anything onto your site that you don't own or don't have permission to use. Sure, it may create some extra paperwork and some companies may need to hire more people to deal with it all, but so what? So what if Google, Facebook or Youtube has problems. The best part about Youtube is the real user submitted material anyway. Adapt or die, and I don't care which one you choose. Of course, this simple concept doesn't jive with leeches who make a living off other people's property, but that is to be expected.

so why do you object to the penalty for making a bogus complaint being raised to losing your copyright.

Why is the statement

"Don't load anything onto your site that you don't own or don't have permission to use"

but the statement

"Don't send take down notices for content that not your, or that was authorized"

not valid.

If you want wipe them from the internet solution,

why are you upset that people are asking for "wipe out the copyright solution" to balance the abuse on the other side.

[Paul Markham]

There's no point discussing it with you Paul. You think government censorship is good. I don't. It'd be like an atheist trying to persuade a born-again Christian god is bad

I defend to the death your right to think that trusting the government to censor the internet is a good thing for the porn business.

I just don't see an alternative. Without censorship all the things I listed would be legal to publish and would encourage people to commit the crimes for the profit of selling the content to the websites.

This happened in Denmark when they took away the law of censorship and withing a short while there were many magazines with child porn. so they had to rethink the law and bring in censorship.

Nothing wrong with censorship if the line is drawn right. Recently in the UK a person was brought to court under a censorship law. He won his case because the jury decided what he was publishing wasn't obscene. Their decision has shot a hole into the law a mile wide. So it wasn't the UK, it was a jury.

Whether this law is right or wrong is another debate. But the debate on censorship is pointless, we have it and you cross the line and you'll get hammered. If a jury says you crossed it.

Yes no point in discussing it, because you'll lose the argument.

[Paul Markham]

there is no good faith belief excuse of copyright infringement

That by definition is unbalanced.

A wrongful accusation does as much damage to innocent company as an "accidental" infringement (believing it fair use when it not).

The way I read the law, it's people with "Sites dedicated to piracy." That need to be worried. An "accidental" infringement is your usual bullshit. Like an accidental murder or bank robbery. Even online if you "accidentally" publish child porn, they will "accidentally" put you in prison.

And what's fair use in terms of the law? Pirate Bay isn't fair use for sure.

so why do you object to the penalty for making a bogus complaint being raised to losing your copyright.

Why is the statement

"Don't load anything onto your site that you don't own or don't have permission to use"

but the statement

"Don't send take down notices for content that not your, or that was authorized"

not valid.

If you want wipe them from the internet solution,

why are you upset that people are asking for "wipe out the copyright solution" to balance the abuse on the other side.

Here you have a valid point. Do you think a host would take down a website on the strength of an email? Simple solution is a registered letter, signed on delivery, from a lawyer in a legal firm as the first step.

I don't think it states what is the adequate notification. But defending yourself against someone who was wrongly accused and punished on the strength of only an email. Is pretty far fetched to bring down a website. They might remove a song, film or scene. But never a whole site.

Still this needs to be stated better in the law.

[CaptainHowdy]

Into the black ...

[NewNick]

There's no point discussing it with you Paul. You think government censorship is good. I don't. It'd be like an atheist trying to persuade a born-again Christian god is bad

I defend to the death your right to think that trusting the government to censor the internet is a good thing for the porn business.

Damian - there is censorship now everywhere. We as a society (enforced by regulations laid down by our governments) dont allow cp, rape, snuff etc. Why is this different ?

Censorship of stolen content is just as easy (and desirable) as censorship of content that society has decided is morally unacceptable.

The "freedom against government censorship" stance championed by sites like wiki that have nothing to lose is absolute bullshit. It might be fashionable but it is also naive and selectively dishonest.

See sig for further advice.....

[gideongallery]

They are also making and releasing more movies. To me if you have to make more product and charge more for it just to make the same amount of money that you were once making it is not a good sign.

so now free market competition is bad.

Cost of making movies is coming down, new revenue streams are existing to augment those "sagging numbers"

let complain about that stuff too.

[PornoMonster]

Corporate supporters of Senate 968 (PIPA) and HR 3261 (SOPA) demand the ability to take down any web site (including craigslist, Wikipedia, or Google) that hurts their profits -- without prior judicial oversight or due process -- in the name of combating "online piracy."

Paul from what I understand, this law is to powerful. Someone can file a complaint, and get a site taken down. This would be done without any legal courts or verrification.
Sure, the person filing the complaint can get in trouble, but what about all the days of missed revenue when the site was down.
Go read what Craigs List has to say about Monster Cables.

Don't believe it? Monster Cable has labeled craigslist a "rogue site," earmarked for blacklisting and full-takedown under PIPA -- resale of stereo cables by CL users reduces Monster 's new cable sales

Look out garage sales -- I have cables for sale.

[DamianJ]

Damian - there is censorship now everywhere. We as a society (enforced by regulations laid down by our governments) dont allow cp, rape, snuff etc. Why is this different ?

1) there is no due process
2) it breaks DNS
3) it opens the door for the government to turn off access to any sites it sees fit
4) it is, as the oatmeal says, using a flamethrower to kill some kittens
5) it won't work, see the satellite internet scheme
6) it is MPAA and RIAA lobbyists trying to turn back time
7) it will not make the blindest bit of difference to revenue
9) what happened to 8)?
8) ah here it is

HTH

Love

Damian

[Paul Markham]

Corporate supporters of Senate 968 (PIPA) and HR 3261 (SOPA) demand the ability to take down any web site (including craigslist, Wikipedia, or Google) that hurts their profits -- without prior judicial oversight or due process -- in the name of combating "online piracy."

Paul from what I understand, this law is to powerful. Someone can file a complaint, and get a site taken down. This would be done without any legal courts or verrification.
Sure, the person filing the complaint can get in trouble, but what about all the days of missed revenue when the site was down.
Go read what Craigs List has to say about Monster Cables.

Don't believe it? Monster Cable has labeled craigslist a "rogue site," earmarked for blacklisting and full-takedown under PIPA -- resale of stereo cables by CL users reduces Monster 's new cable sales

Look out garage sales -- I have cables for sale.

I hope someone can put you and I right on this point. I read the act and this is a paste and copy of what part of it says. Regarding taking down sites. I put my reading of it in red.

(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if-- So doesn't apply to US sites that can be sued via the courts. Or actually charged for breaking law in a US court.

(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States; So block US traffic and you have no problems. People can get through, but you're not aiming at the US.

(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and So is just A US company or citizen just standing us and saying B&B is a piracy enough? No I think to break a law it's innocent until proven guilty.

(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site. Still seems to me the AG will need proof and possibly a conviction. No where does it say only accused or in the opinion of. Yes I can see some small sites getting swiped, but try it on a site in the EU and they might find the EU battling it out in court with the AG.

(b) Action by the Attorney General-

(1) IN PERSONAM- The Attorney General may commence an in personam action against--

(A) a registrant of a domain name used by a foreign infringing site; or Again that word foreign.

(B) an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.Again that word foreign.

So Monster Cables, doesn't like CS legally reselling second hand cables and attacks it. That breaks so many US corporate laws the court case will be a dandy.

I read so many scare stories, most of them untrue, that when I go read the law, I wonder how they figured it out. Probably copied it from Torrent Freak.

Yes the law needs to be carefully examined in the process of getting it passed. Safeguards need to be put in. IMO it should not exclude US owned sites. They should be as subject to their own laws as others are. At present Manwin are in the clear, as is CL I believe. I'm sure there are other piracy sites owned by US companies. That might be the loop hole, open a US corp and it's plain sailing. Until a US company sues.

As the CEO of Wikipedia said follow the money. Make a CC processing site liable to damages and funding takes a hit. Go after advertisers and it could be a fatal blow for most of them.

Piracy used to be a cottage industry, not it's major business. It will be stopped.

[porno jew]

you need to brush up on the law. the dns provision has been dropped.

1) there is no due process
2) it breaks DNS
3) it opens the door for the government to turn off access to any sites it sees fit
4) it is, as the oatmeal says, using a flamethrower to kill some kittens
5) it won't work, see the satellite internet scheme
6) it is MPAA and RIAA lobbyists trying to turn back time
7) it will not make the blindest bit of difference to revenue
9) what happened to 8)?
8) ah here it is

HTH

Love

Damian

[Operator]

That they have he is right

[Paul Markham]

Damian - there is censorship now everywhere. We as a society (enforced by regulations laid down by our governments) dont allow cp, rape, snuff etc. Why is this different ?

If you think sensibly and ask yourself "Should the Internet be censored?" There really is only one answer. Yes.

It's something that allows anyone to put up anything on. Not just information but libel, incitement to violence, hate, prejudice and lies, kids can beat tramps and sell membership to the content, or beat up fellow kids and pt it on Youtube. And this is just part of it. 15 year old's can have sex and put it online, one adult can put a movie online he secretly took of a lover, not touching the pictures of underage kids nude or unsuspecting adults seeing their pictures they they thought were private come into the public domain.

And if I need to repeat all the illegal stuff that could be flooding the Internet with no censorship, I would be hear all night.

Just a very tiny proportion of this type of content that some want legalised, gets into offline publications and the publishers get found and hit hard usually. A non censored Internet is a crazy idea. If you think sensibly.

[Paul Markham]

you need to brush up on the law. the dns provision has been dropped.

He should read this first.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...3swVEz:e29080:

It hits the money. Can you see sites with no processors, no advertising, able to survive.

If you take down that and the file lockers, what's left? Piracy goes back to being a cottage industry.

[Paul Markham]

Sorry guys another thought hit me about an uncensored Internet.

How many Muslim terrorists cut off the heads of hostages so they could get it aired online?

Horrible thought. However if the Internet is "uncensored" as some wish. Think of child rape, adult rape, snuff movies, etc, just to get it online. Self regulation in a world like today where some will do anything to make a fast buck?

That's a little bit too much trust to put into the hands of anyone who can put up a site and upload a video. So all we have is the Government, who do you trust more, people who would do anything to get their 5 minutes of fame, make a fast buck, depraved, psychotic or the Government?

It's horrible even thinking about an "uncensored Internet" if you think a little about it.

[stocktrader23]

If you think sensibly and ask yourself "Should the Internet be censored?" There really is only one answer. Yes.

Paul, this is utter fucking ridiculousness. There is a reason libraries / little old librarians fight tooth and nail against censorship and it is a good one. Restricting the flow of information and ideas is absolute horse shit. What idiot kids upload to YouTube has fuck all to do with censorship being ok. In fact, by uploading it they bring it the attention that is needed.

Reality should never be censored, good bad or fucking ugly.

[Paul Markham]

Paul, this is utter fucking ridiculousness. There is a reason libraries / little old librarians fight tooth and nail against censorship and it is a good one. Restricting the flow of information and ideas is absolute horse shit. What idiot kids upload to YouTube has fuck all to do with censorship being ok. In fact, by uploading it they bring it the attention that is needed.

Reality should never be censored, good bad or fucking ugly.

So you agree to the reality of a child being raped and the film going online. OK I get where you're coming from.

Yes the kids upload it to get attention. We agree on this. Problem is it gets the attention of another bunch of kids who want their 5 minutes of fame. Where does it stop ST?

And the little old librarians don't fight against censorship. They fight about where the line is drawn. They have more sense than to want a world with no censorship.

[gideongallery]

This just in Chuckie Cheese to protest SOPA.

This was the final piece in proving Damian right. If any company is against SOPA that makes you right Damian because clearly those companies are wayyyy smarter than the companies that are for SOPA.

SMH. At times I find your comments interesting, other times you sound like one of the sheep commenters on TorrentFreak or Wjunction. Peaks and valleys my friend.

well the companies who support sopa thought vcr was to american movie industry what the boston strangler was to a women alone at home

yet 5 years after that statement home viewing market was worth more than all other distributions COMBINED

i wouldn't brag about that level of stupidity.

[gideongallery]

The way I read the law, it's people with "Sites dedicated to piracy." That need to be worried. An "accidental" infringement is your usual bullshit. Like an accidental murder or bank robbery. Even online if you "accidentally" publish child porn, they will "accidentally" put you in prison.

when nasty dollars hired an under age girl because she faked the id necessary

how many of the webmaster who published those pictures went to jail.

want an example of accidentally infringing

john steele honey pot bullshit, where he put gay porn under the names of popular tv shows, and music.

same basic situation getting tricked into committing the crime

you guys spread kiddie porn across the net and didn't get any liablity for it

...

And what's fair use in terms of the law? Pirate Bay isn't fair use for sure.

then you should have any problem risking your copyright based on that accusation.
timeshifting has been validated to the cloud, it possible other fair uses will also be validated.

Here you have a valid point. Do you think a host would take down a website on the strength of an email? Simple solution is a registered letter, signed on delivery, from a lawyer in a legal firm as the first step.

I don't think it states what is the adequate notification. But defending yourself against someone who was wrongly accused and punished on the strength of only an email. Is pretty far fetched to bring down a website. They might remove a song, film or scene. But never a whole site.

Still this needs to be stated better in the law.

again if that what you believe you should have no problem risking your copyright on that complaint.

If the laws are good enough to prevent it, no judge will rubber stamp an order, you have nothing to worry about.

There are to many examples where that kind of shit has happened under the DMCA. So i don't have your "faith" it won't happen again.

[gideongallery]

you need to brush up on the law. the dns provision has been dropped.

actually it was promised to be dropped

it however hasn't been dropped yet

[Paul Markham]

when nasty dollars hired an under age girl because she faked the id necessary

how many of the webmaster who published those pictures went to jail.

want an example of accidentally infringing

john steele honey pot bullshit, where he put gay porn under the names of popular tv shows, and music.

same basic situation getting tricked into committing the crime

you guys spread kiddie porn across the net and didn't get any liablity for it

Just because they were not prosecuted doesn't mean they couldn't of been. I was in the business during the Traci Lords episode. A lot of shop owners were scared of ending up in prison. For accidentally selling child porn. Go read the law.

[gideongallery]

Just because they were not prosecuted doesn't mean they couldn't of been. I was in the business during the Traci Lords episode. A lot of shop owners were scared of ending up in prison. For accidentally selling child porn. Go read the law.

read the case law the producers and distributors were aquitted of the crime because they were fooled by fake ids.

the "pirates" who were honeypotted into infringing paid up.

If the law was balanced the lack of mental intent would have voided the transaction at the discovery phase.

[ArsewithClass]

http://www.examiner.com/computers-in...use-kills-sopa

1 down 1 to go.

And we say we do not live in propaganda... This reader wrote this & is correct

Cara Schulz
This is such an unfortunate title for this article. SOPA is not dead. killed, or anything of the sort. They DELAYED HEARINGS on this Bill. That's it. Now people are passing this around, looking at the title, and saying "Well, I'm glad that's all over. Now I can stop paying attention to it." You've done your readers a major disservice.

http://boingboing.net/2012/01/16/sop...il-senate.html
Note the update and the comments - other articles are doing the same now.

Propaganda can create a world of difference

[stocktrader23]

So you agree to the reality of a child being raped and the film going online. OK I get where you're coming from.

Yes the kids upload it to get attention. We agree on this. Problem is it gets the attention of another bunch of kids who want their 5 minutes of fame. Where does it stop ST?

And the little old librarians don't fight against censorship. They fight about where the line is drawn. They have more sense than to want a world with no censorship.

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Sect...ontentID=11699

Burn the books, there's bad stuff in em!

[nico-t]

Paul Markhams posts should be bundled to a book.

it would be like the bible: Too long and outdated.

[Paul Markham]

Paul Markhams posts should be bundled to a book.

it would be like the bible: Too long and outdated.

Top of the best sellers list.

ST23 you don't have an intelligent answer do you?

I asked those anti censorship people if they think some things should be censored or not?

Censorship.
Are you for or against the censorship of child porn, real rape films and pictures, snuff movies?
If you say for, then you agree on censorship and the debate is where the line is drawn. If you're against, how will you live with the idea children were abused, women raped and people killed to get it online?
The act is illegal, the publication is censorship.

Paul Markham. Google me.

Will post their reply.

Your problem is, you're clutching straws that keep breaking.