Subject: SOPA - Stop Online Piracy Act

r FS n uploaded.to next?

It's a bit more complicated as that. First of all upload sites not only provide copyright movies, tv shows, music etc but also a lot of non copyright material, maybe even mostly. Checking every single uploaded file is next to impossible, and completely impossible without having to make incredible expenses if they need to. Secondly, no one every claimed it's their material when uploaded and they never paid for it (that's a completely different situation as your example of fencing). Thirdly, IF uploading is a criminal act (I don't think sharing data is a criminal act accept for a few very extreme examples like childporn), then why not arrest the uploaders in stead of closing the 'store' without any evidence they knew about it, or at least I haven't seen any lawsuit against Megaupload proving the owners knew about it. And fourthly, it's not one-way because many can now watch it or listen to something they maybe never had paid for and by that never been reached. For example artists will now reach hundreds of millions in stead of a small group without these sites and because of that they will make extra money, and not only because of much more audiences with concerts but most probably also cd sales.

And to make ACTA work everything needs to be check always, so we will be monitored always, and that's against our right of privacy.


(already posted this, but I will do it again)

EDIT: Ask yourself, if you quote a line from a book on your own website, are you a criminal? According to ACTA, yes! Or is Sokker a criminal site because we post news items, music and pictures on forums and post official soccer team logos on Club pages? According to ACTA, yes!

(edited)

The point is that certain people over here are against SOPA / PIPA / ACTA because those things want to do something against illegal stuff on the internet. I am against those three too, but not because they're dealing with the illegal stuff.

You cannot just copy things on the internet. Well, you can, but you shouldn't, and they must find something to prevent that without violating the freedom of speech.

Don't be naïve. If you read the indictment, you'd notice that when contacted about copyright infringements they'd act like they removed the content, but in fact continued to offer it. Also, it isn't hard to spot material which is most likely protected by copyright. Face it, a site like this can only exist precisely because it does offer stolen property.

did you know there is a "little" difference between intellectual and physical property ?

There are all kinds of legal differences between all types of goods. The concept of property does not change, however. Nor does the concept of theft or the concept of fencing. It used to be that law codes had a little trouble with the concept of copying stuff, but that has been dealt with years ago. If you knowingly offer 'pirated content' - which translates to: continue to offer after the injured party asked you to stop - you are in the wrong. It differs from country to country whether or not it is a crime to download illegal content - in the USA, it is, in the Netherlands, it is not (for now, likely this will change soonish) - but those who offer it for download are almost everywhere committing a crime.

its not property its copyrighted material.

typical examples of copyrights being voided? manufacture of nitric acid. patented for ages. german law said f that, we need it en masse and cheap, we dont recognise your patent, infact its just instructions for us. thanks.

stuff like that can be voided at any time. the issue with doing this is companies arent encouraged to research new stuff.
with music, it makes companies less willing to invest in artists. why? because they wont make money on record sales.
record companies and music stores will lose out.

artists have to make money from live shows. money is made on crowd control bouncers, etc at live shows instead.

movies, lesser extent. dvds will become cheaper. as they ahve already. netflix etc type things will kick up - providing a better service and across multiple platforms. I have no problem dl movies, but the service offered by netflix for playing movies on e.g my wii, my xbox, no hassle hooking up laptops, hard drives etc..

its called evolution/change. There was major problems with casettes way before all this. people taping from radio.

the only people who have thus far prevented change is oil companies not letting electric cars/hydrogen cars come into the world

tesla first invents this stuff properly. killed.
then again it probably wouldnt have been financially viable option until 20 years ago. but the technology cud have been so much more advanced :/

nice link :D
man i really respect them as a group. if that is what they are doing its hilarious.

be funny if they just got people to download 1 individual thing which is free. 1 billion times for a song or something

so sony owes royalties of 1 billion to someone or ends up like MU

Checking every single uploaded file is next to impossible, and completely impossible without having to make incredible expenses if they need to.

Not really. Every music, photo, video file etc. is made of parts that have a distinguishable code. It's just a matter of having a device/program that spots the copyrighted code when sb is trying to upload illegal content. Simple as that. From what I know, suchs programs are already being used.

That will work, if it's not a copy of a copy with the code already removed ;)

You can't remove the code. The video/music/whatever is MADE of this code.

Don't be naïve. If you read the indictment, you'd notice that when contacted about copyright infringements they'd act like they removed the content, but in fact continued to offer it. Also, it isn't hard to spot material which is most likely protected by copyright. Face it, a site like this can only exist precisely because it does offer stolen property.

I thought you study law ...... The first part is an assumption without proof, how do they know this site didn't do anything about the uploaded material? And ofcourse they still offered uploaded material, it's an upload site! Second, how do you know if it's hard or not to prevent copyright material being uploaded? Is it your job to check millions of uploaded data-files? And who stole what? Definition of stealing.

And it's absolutely nonsense to say a site like that can only exist because it 'offers stolen goods'. What about Youtube, what about Wikipedia, what about sites offering summaries of books, what about my previous 2 examples, etc etc etc etc? Also all criminals when an agency sends them a letter telling them they provide copyright material?

Ok, didn't know. Have to read some about it to know if this will always work.

Well it won't :p

for example if you make a mirror of a video, the code changes - don't know if it's easily possible to detect it...

That's what I meant :) That someone can make a copy without the code so it can't be detected anymore (or much more difficult).

The first part is an assumption without proof, how do they know this site didn't do anything about the uploaded material?

Read the indictment. It has the ring of truth about it. Obviously, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but generally speaking, indictments are generally based on a little bit more than mere assumptions without proof. At the very least, those who prosecute believe they can prove it. (It wouldn't even go to court if there wasn't proof! You can't just arrest people because you like to do so, either.)

And who stole what?

This defence doesn't hold any water. Have a look at similar cases. I think it was piratebay.com or something like that which first got successfully prosecuted.


And it's absolutely nonsense to say a site like that can only exist because it 'offers stolen goods'.

Would you go there if all you could download was some meaningless trash? (Like a thesis or two.) I bet you wouldn't. The popularity of websites like this one lies in the fact you can get your hands on goods which would cost you (more) money if acquired elsewhere. Popularity relates directly to income from commercial stuff. So, yes, it does derive its existance from its criminal activities. YouTube makes a huge net loss as far as I know and only lives on because it is funded by its mother company. (I think.) Wikipedia is a completely different beast altogether.

its not property its copyrighted material.

I know very little about English law, but under Dutch (continental) law, copyright is a form of property. Most countries have chosen to respect copyright. Rights can always be voided at any time. Doesn't make them any less of a right until that happens.