Stupid Guest Tricks

darph nader wrote:I'll do what I can,but one of our congressmen hasn't been to work in almost a year...

Getting shot in the head has that effect on people.

Just got an email reply from Dianne Feinstein. She says the bill actually is aimed at internet piracy, not everyday users. She admits that the bill needs some work on it, but the First Amendment would not be affected.

felinefan wrote:Just got an email reply from Dianne Feinstein. She says the bill actually is aimed at internet piracy, not everyday users. She admits that the bill needs some work on it, but the First Amendment would not be affected.

Here's the problem with both bills. Each one gives Copyright holders the power to erase the DNS entry to a website on US servers. The DNS is basically like the white pages of the internet. When you type in an address (Like Stupidguesttricks.com) the DNS server reroutes your traffic to the appropriate IP Address (72.249.65.228).
This bill allows copyright holders to remove these DNS entries without Due Process. Due process is an important term here. If, for example, Somebody posted an innocent link to someone (outside the US) selling Name tags, or Costumes or some such that Disney didn't like, Disney would have the right to have our DNS entry pulled and we would have essentially no recourse. While this is a worst case scenario it is entirely possible.
So the question is do you trust rights holders to properly investigate each and every link and act with common sense and fair play? Because they have obviously done so in the past... NOT!

Time to open up an offshore dns service. They could be driving traffic right to it ! Just sell a few banner ads on a portal page...

Take a look at this article if you don't believe me.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... videos.ars

CujoSR wrote:Take a look at this article if you don't believe me.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... videos.ars

I don't understand how the article relates to the use of DBS removal orders to "hide" or make a site vanish.

I can understand how YouTube would agree with a large copyright holder to allow that holder to wipe the content owned by them from YouTube. No different thn Disney taking down a copy of Tangled posted by a user.
As someone who earns his living from the creation of copywrighted material, I feel that the owner of that material deserves to have some say in removing it from you tube or any other sharing site.

When I do a film, I can choose to get a large fee up front, or a smaller fee with residuals. I've never taken the residuals, but many do. A friend who did stunt work on many films took the residuals, and now that he is off work with a serious injury, those residuals are keeping him afloat. But if no one paid for the movies, there would bento money to trickle down to him. It's only a small amount each time a movie airs on tv, but thanks to the magic of networks needing filler material, and in fight showings, it still pays, years later.

There are some who think that buying or obtaining one copy of a cd or film entitles them to distribute it or sell copies. Those peopleareruining it for people who want to see a mash up of star wars set to clips of dark side of the moon (just imagine!). And as a big corporation, you tube has to play ball with he lawyers, or risk being sued in oblivion.

But a distinction needs to bemade between copywrighted material, and opinions. Consider a band just releasing a newsong on cd. Bobby buys the cd. If they don't want Bobby posting their tune, that is fine. But if Bobby writes a lousy reviewoftheir tune, theycantdo anything about it. It is Bobby's opinion. If he post it on their website, or one that they control, they might delete the review. But if he posts his review on his blog, or even here, the band should have no say. Under Canadian law he could even include a small sample (30 seconds max) of the material if the review was in the form of an audio or video blog I understand. That is why when news crews cover a concert or a play opening, the never air more than 30 seconds of footage. There are people who actually time it, and sometimes a network gets caught. It can be very expensive.

Sorry Delsdad. My last comment and link to the article was in addtioin to this part of my post:

So the question is do you trust rights holders to properly investigate each and every link and act with common sense and fair play? Because they have obviously done so in the past... NOT!

I have No problem with copyright holders asking for infringing content to be taken down. These protections are already part of law in the DMCA. The issue I have is both the Protect IP act and SOPA have very broad definitions as to what they can do. SOPA in particular can effectively remove a website without the injured party ever stepping inside a courtroom. One day SGT (or for that matter, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, etc.) could just be gone. I support Artist's rights. I support Copyright. But I do not support this.

felinefan wrote:Just got an email reply from Dianne Feinstein. She says the bill actually is aimed at internet piracy, not everyday users. She admits that the bill needs some work on it, but the First Amendment would not be affected.

Yeah... she's wrong. There's so much wrong with both SOPA and PIPA that they need to be scrapped entirely, not just "worked on."

felinefan wrote:Just got an email reply from Dianne Feinstein. She says the bill actually is aimed at internet piracy, not everyday users. She admits that the bill needs some work on it, but the First Amendment would not be affected.

This from the same government that for the last ninety-eight years has been pushing things through to take away freedom any chance they get. It doesn't matter who is in office or which office they are in. This is a huge problem, way beyond democrat or republican issues (that's all a horse and pony show anyway). This is a perfect way to make it so that free speech is ended. The idea of ending information piracy is a good one. The problem with the bills is that they are worded that if someone was to accuse us of hosting illegal files or file sharing, they merely need to make the accusation and without any fact-checking by the people who have the power to make it happen.

The language in the bill, even if it was never used as it possibly can be, is against everything that the United States once stood for.

Big Wallaby wrote:This from the same government that for the last ninety-eight years has been pushing things through to take away freedom any chance they get. It doesn't matter who is in office or which office they are in. This is a huge problem, way beyond democrat or republican issues (that's all a horse and pony show anyway). This is a perfect way to make it so that free speech is ended. The idea of ending information piracy is a good one. The problem with the bills is that they are worded that if someone was to accuse us of hosting illegal files or file sharing, they merely need to make the accusation and without any fact-checking by the people who have the power to make it happen.

The language in the bill, even if it was never used as it possibly can be, is against everything that the United States once stood for.

Doesn't your constitution protect you against such things? Since this would amount to unreasonable search and seizure, or guilty without a trial ? Here it would be challenged, successfully, as unconstitutional .