welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Wikipedia blackout in protest of SOPA
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10427
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's a banner on Wikipedia that now points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CongressLookup?new=yes
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Arc Tempest



Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 4898
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A summary of aftershocks from yesterday's blackout: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/19/sopa-so-what-happened-yesterday/#more-89790.
_________________
The older I get, the more certain I become of one thing. True and abiding cynicism is simply a form of cowardice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12208
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Proof that you don't need SOPA/PIPA or an end to filesharing to go after real criminals; existing legislation seems to work out okay.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10427
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the URL says it all: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/pipa-support-collapses-with-13-new-opponents-in-senate.ars

Actually, according to the updates on the bottom of the page, it's up to 19 more opponents.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12208
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Way to go, Derpnonymous. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3561
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
Proof that you don't need SOPA/PIPA or an end to filesharing to go after real criminals; existing legislation seems to work out okay.


Excuse me, how are these, "opportunists," real criminals?

Also, if any masochists are interested, https://twitter.com/herpderpedia
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
Proof that you don't need SOPA/PIPA or an end to filesharing to go after real criminals; existing legislation seems to work out okay.


What do you mean? Megaupload was a completely legal website. They did not host the material on their own servers, hence they cannot be indicted. This was just hustling by the FBI, in cahoots with the other governing authories who are clearly cowards. The fact that you could pay for a membership on the site, and the fact that they had a reward system, is completely inconsequential. It was deemed legal in the country it was hosted, and it never violated any DMCA agreements. So how are they "criminals", exactly? Lastly, surely you don't consider this mafia-like tactic by the FBI lawful, by any means? They don't have the authority to give orders to other countries, and they certainly don't have the authority to give orders of extradition. They have no legal ground to stand on. Seriously.

Edit: The excuse the FBI use is, as well, a load of absolute bullcrap. First it's "violating privacy rights" (bullshit), conspiracy (I don't even know what this means, but bullshit) and then it's of "lost revenue" (ha ha ha) of a few hundred million. I kid you not. "Lost revenue." That is, had Megaupload not existed, then clearly the people who uploaded the material to Megaupload would have bought all their music and movies. *facepalm* Hnnnnnnnnggg. So... they have no trouble circumventing international law, but tech savvy... they are not.
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12208
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guest wrote:
WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
Proof that you don't need SOPA/PIPA or an end to filesharing to go after real criminals; existing legislation seems to work out okay.


What do you mean? Megaupload was a completely legal website. They did not host the material on their own servers, hence they cannot be indicted.

Yes they can. Since there is a lot of evidence that they knew of, and even promoted and privately engaged in, the distribution of pirated material through their service, they don't qualify for the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA (unlike Youtube, or Google searches for pirated material). There's evidence that they tried to hide the real extent of this use by intentionally painting a misleading picture of which files were the most popular (i.e. they chose to present the legal ones instead of the illegal ones that were actually being shared the most), and that they had been basing the amount of infringing content they took down for copyright owners on whether or not they could afford to lose the ad revenue associated with it. That means the money they brought in through advertisers and whatnot was known by them to be supporting criminal activity, too.
Whether they hosted the material themselves is not going to figure into this.

Quote:
Lastly, surely you don't consider this mafia-like tactic by the FBI lawful, by any means? They don't have the authority to give orders to other countries, and they certainly don't have the authority to give orders of extradition. They have no legal ground to stand on. Seriously.

You know that MegaUpload used a ton of servers in the US as well, exposing the company to US jurisdiction, right?

That said, this is not a slam-dunk case of the Good Guys vs. the Bad Guys. MegaUpload was already in a legal dispute with Universal Music Group because that label censored MU's legitimate commercial from Youtube without a genuine copyright reason to do so. And a lot of stuff in the indictment doesn't make sense. But if the things I've enumerated above are shown to be accurate, there's little reason MU won't be going down in court.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
Guest wrote:
WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
Proof that you don't need SOPA/PIPA or an end to filesharing to go after real criminals; existing legislation seems to work out okay.


What do you mean? Megaupload was a completely legal website. They did not host the material on their own servers, hence they cannot be indicted.

Yes they can. Since there is a lot of evidence that they knew of, and even promoted and privately engaged in, the distribution of pirated material through their service, they don't qualify for the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA (unlike Youtube, or Google searches for pirated material).


No. They cannot, and where have you read they privately engaged in the distribution of pirated material? However even if they did know, and promoted the act of piracy, does not suddenly make them subject to indictment. The Pirate Bay was issued with the same shutdown method, unlawfully by the FBI in cahoots with the Swedish government, and yet they could not prosecute because the website does not host the material themselves on their own servers. You can only be arrested or indicted if you're known to do anything illegal, and only promoting the act is not illegal as far as I'm concerned - unless we're now adding "thought crime" to the tally.

Quote:
There's evidence that they tried to hide the real extent of this use by intentionally painting a misleading picture of which files were the most popular (i.e. they chose to present the legal ones instead of the illegal ones that were actually being shared the most), and that they had been basing the amount of infringing content they took down for copyright owners on whether or not they could afford to lose the ad revenue associated with it. That means the money they brought in through advertisers and whatnot was known by them to be supporting criminal activity, too.


Ok, now you seriously need to show me where you read this.

Quote:
Whether they hosted the material themselves is not going to figure into this.


Yes it is. Once again: The Pirate Bay. It's basically the same case.

Quote:
Quote:
Lastly, surely you don't consider this mafia-like tactic by the FBI lawful, by any means? They don't have the authority to give orders to other countries, and they certainly don't have the authority to give orders of extradition. They have no legal ground to stand on. Seriously.

You know that MegaUpload used a ton of servers in the US as well, exposing the company to US jurisdiction, right?


That's not how copyright works. Yeah, they could shut down the servers, I guess, but shutting down the whole company?

Quote:
That said, this is not a slam-dunk case of the Good Guys vs. the Bad Guys. MegaUpload was already in a legal dispute with Universal Music Group because that label censored MU's legitimate commercial from Youtube without a genuine copyright reason to do so. And a lot of stuff in the indictment doesn't make sense. But if the things I've enumerated above are shown to be accurate, there's little reason MU won't be going down in court.


The whole case is a sham. It's fucking bizarre.
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12208
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This was published after I posted the first link, it explains things more clearly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10427
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
This was published after I posted the first link, it explains things more clearly.

Um, Guest, STFU! Read the link WoC posted here. It's not like these guys were trying to promote anything idealistic, they were simply trying to make an easy buck. Only problem was they were doing so via illegal means.

Honestly Guest, the only reason anyone would actually defend these guys is that they were using their services themselves.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12208
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've used MegaUpload before, but only when I knew the person sharing it out was the one who created the stuff. Not every indie musician is on Bandcamp.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
This was published after I posted the first link, it explains things more clearly.

Um, Guest, STFU! Read the link WoC posted here. It's not like these guys were trying to promote anything idealistic, they were simply trying to make an easy buck. Only problem was they were doing so via illegal means.


I hadn't read the fucking thing before he posted the link to it, Darq. Jesus. Oh, and thanks for the backhanded insult thrown in there. Excuse me if I'm a fan of due process and none of this huckster bullshit. Clearly you're more of the "fall in line and shut up" type of guy.

I'm still skeptical after reading the indictment. Many cases where they "allegedly" did this and that, no way to actually confirm the email correspondence is legit, and it seems the emails were seized by the FBI in a former raid? Did they have the legal jurisdiction to perform such a raid? It doesn't make clear and it never says. But whatever. If they did what they did, they are opportunists and should be fined, but let's be clear here; they haven't been convicted yet, however their assets are being seized and their operations shut down as if they were. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12208
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Teehee!
http://twitter.com/#!/Encarta95/status/159526112563695616

*still has the disc for Encarta 96 that came bundled with the family's first real computer*


*edit* More MegaUpload info about jurisdiction.


Last edited by WheelsOfConfusion on Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3315

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guest wrote:


I'm still skeptical after reading the indictment. Many cases where they "allegedly" did this and that, no way to actually confirm the email correspondence is legit, and it seems the emails were seized by the FBI in a former raid? Did they have the legal jurisdiction to perform such a raid? It doesn't make clear and it never says. But whatever. If they did what they did, they are opportunists and should be fined, but let's be clear here; they haven't been convicted yet, however their assets are being seized and their operations shut down as if they were. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"


Gosh, its almost like...all the evidence doesn't get made public in criminal proceedings, and the skepticism of some kid on the internet with no degree or even background in copyright law means nothing!


shocking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group