Quote:
Originally Posted by Loch
(Post 17326781)
How do i figure?
You cant be serious....
Webmasters have been and are complaining about stolen content, lost revenue 24/7 on GFY and other industry boards
The industry (Or should i say a few industry leaders) have spent Millions batteling crimes like this for years "in some cases a decade".
But yet when it comes to the latest blockbuster hollywood movie or TV shows webmasters rip them off any chance they get through illigal movie sites and other download sources.
Hell even complain about not being able to view Hulu world wide and question how Hulu can be dumb enough to not just open up world wide.....not even having one second thought towards what that would do to their Broadcasters WW and the cost of a movie ticket :1orglaugh
And please elaborate as to how theft and internet freedom has anything to do with each other?
|
Well let me just outline what I am saying, because you are entitled to the benefit of the doubt of being ignorant on the thread topic. These websites were not shut down through conventional channels, nor were the assets (being the domains) seized through US registrars, but rather US authorities exerted their authority over the entire TLD system, and the internet itself, by seizing domains through ICANN itself. ICANN controls access to the root servers (on US soil), and controls all TLDs include country level TLDs, such as .com.au .de, etc.
Essentially the US has said, through its actions, that regardless of the location of the site/domain registrar, the extension of the site, etc we still reserve the right to seize any domain on the planet. This is a very big issue, and it only serves the legitimacy of arguements 5-6 years ago that ICANN should not be controlled by a single Government entity, unfortunately the US resisted calls to give up control to the UN.
In relation to infringement, there certainly is a fair argument that tougher laws are required, ACTA (if phrased right) may be a step in that direction (at the moment the whole process of drafting ACTA has been one sided, and there can be little faith the end result will be anything but that). However giving ludacris control over the entire internet and individuals personal rights to copyright holders and lobbies is not the answer. This latest action has done that. The US Government has acted at the behest of lobbyists, and in 'partnership' with them, to socialize the cost of a normally civil matter, and in the process set a very dangerous precedent for future control of the internet. It is a difficult balancing act, and it is fair to say the current balance is not working, but the alternative that lobbyists and the US Government (now) isn't appropriate either - in any way, shape or form.
|