Seibertron wrote:Not surprised about Megaupload. Curious to hear more about it.
Just remember ... we weren't advocating stopping the US government from stopping known piracy websites. We were advocating against stopping SOPA and PIPA which could hurt all sites. If the government wants to legally go after sites that are havens for pirated music, movies, etc ... they can have at it and they should have at it.
Seibertron wrote:Nice to see fellow Transformers fansites TFormers.com and Allspark.com join the battle as well. Allspark.com is redirecting everyone from their domain to sopastrike.com.
YouTube personality Optibotimus shut his YouTube account down for the day. http://www.youtube.com/optibotimus
Kudos to everyone who does their part to bring attention to this issue!
Jesterhead wrote:http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/20/pipa-and-sopa-votes-pushed-back/
Looks like the blackouts haven't gone unnoticed. Democracy lives!...for now.
Washington, D.C. — House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today issued the following statement in response to the Senate decision to postpone consideration of legislation to help combat online piracy.
Chairman Smith: “I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy. It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.
“The problem of online piracy is too big to ignore. American intellectual property industries provide 19 million high-paying jobs and account for more than 60 percent of U.S. exports. The theft of America’s intellectual property costs the U.S. economy more than $100 billion annually and results in the loss of thousands of American jobs. Congress cannot stand by and do nothing while American innovators and job creators are under attack.
“The online theft of American intellectual property is no different than the theft of products from a store. It is illegal and the law should be enforced both in the store and online.
“The Committee will continue work with copyright owners, Internet companies, financial institutions to develop proposals that combat online piracy and protect America’s intellectual property. We welcome input from all organizations and individuals who have an honest difference of opinion about how best to address this widespread problem. The Committee remains committed to finding a solution to the problem of online piracy that protects American intellectual property and innovation.”
The House Judiciary Committee will postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution.
Wigglez wrote:Just remember. The sword is an extension of your arm. Use it as if you're going to karate chop someone with your really long sharp ass hand.
The House Judiciary Committee will postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution.
Jesterhead wrote:And by that, they mean they'll try to slip it in 6-12 months later when everybody forgets and the SOPA buzz has died down.
Burn wrote:Jesterhead wrote:And by that, they mean they'll try to slip it in 6-12 months later when everybody forgets and the SOPA buzz has died down.
From what I read they may just try to slip it in with the anti-child porn bill that's coming up.
And no one's going to oppose an anti-child porn bill.
Wigglez wrote:Just remember. The sword is an extension of your arm. Use it as if you're going to karate chop someone with your really long sharp ass hand.
Shadowman wrote:Burn wrote:Jesterhead wrote:And by that, they mean they'll try to slip it in 6-12 months later when everybody forgets and the SOPA buzz has died down.
From what I read they may just try to slip it in with the anti-child porn bill that's coming up.
And no one's going to oppose an anti-child porn bill.
People are already serving hard time for child porn, what's a new bill going to do?
EDIT: Good Lord, "Hard Time" was the worst possible choice of words. Serving time in prison.
Vicalliose wrote:Shadowman wrote:Burn wrote:Jesterhead wrote:And by that, they mean they'll try to slip it in 6-12 months later when everybody forgets and the SOPA buzz has died down.
From what I read they may just try to slip it in with the anti-child porn bill that's coming up.
And no one's going to oppose an anti-child porn bill.
People are already serving hard time for child porn, what's a new bill going to do?
EDIT: Good Lord, "Hard Time" was the worst possible choice of words. Serving time in prison.
Edit: Actually I looked it up. H.R.1981? It's supposed to keep kids who have... well you know, from having their information on the internet. Child and witness protection stuff for the most part. Also fighting money laundering. If this is the one mentioned, I'll do a little research and keep watching to see if they try ****.
Don't forget SOPA can slipped in with something else or they can overrule the president. THIS IS NOT A VICTORY! And also do not forget about PIPA and S.978 which are still out there.
Also what with MegaUpload down it means no more TV Nihon for my brother. He's kinda infuriated.
Vicalliose wrote:Don't forget SOPA can slipped in with something else or they can overrule the president. THIS IS NOT A VICTORY! And also do not forget about PIPA and S.978 which are still out there.
Vicalliose wrote:Also what with MegaUpload down it means no more TV Nihon for my brother. He's kinda infuriated.
Wigglez wrote:Just remember. The sword is an extension of your arm. Use it as if you're going to karate chop someone with your really long sharp ass hand.
Investment Firm Y Combinator Goes on Offensive Against Hollywood wrote:After the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect Intellectual Property Act were shelved on Friday, some Web sites and venture capitalists went on the offensive against the people and companies behind the controversial piracy bills.
Needs a few more names on it...We the people wrote:Investigate Chris Dodd and the MPAA for bribery after he publicly admited to bribing politicans to pass legislation
I had gotten the impression he'd already vetoed it, but I've been out of the loop for a while so I'm assuming that was just Bull***t being spread around that I should not have listened to. But yeah SOPA has been dragged through the mud. Though considering what Happened to MegaUpload it shows there's already something seriously wrong with how our government views and enforces copyright infringement. Also I wouldn't exactly call SOPA "dead", it's currently lying dormant until a "consensus" can be made and will be brought up for debate later on. No amendments have been made and only three people have pulled from backing the bill.Shadowman wrote:First off, SOPA hasn't even gotten to the point where it would need to be signed by the president; you can't overrule someone who hasn't even done anything yet. Second, PIPA is exactly as dead as SOPA is.
They hosted most of their content there according to him. I wouldn't know since I've never been there anyway.Shadowman wrote:You know they have their own site, right? He never needed to go through Megaupload for that.
Define "profit." Edit: So I read the "amendment" on the Library of Congress and yes it really does not amount to much of anything. Yet people talk about it like it's the bill itself... This line here is what bugs me.Shadowman wrote:And S.978 is an amendment to an already-existing bill, about people making money off of streaming copyrighted content.
Maybe I'm not reading this right, but it seems as though it does not matter whether or not the person is directly making profit off of the streamed content or not.Library_of_Congress wrote: `(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or
`(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;';
Vicalliose wrote:They hosted most of their content there according to him. I wouldn't know since I've never been there anyway.Shadowman wrote:You know they have their own site, right? He never needed to go through Megaupload for that.
Vicalliose wrote:Define "profit."Shadowman wrote:And S.978 is an amendment to an already-existing bill, about people making money off of streaming copyrighted content.
Wigglez wrote:Just remember. The sword is an extension of your arm. Use it as if you're going to karate chop someone with your really long sharp ass hand.
Shadowman wrote:Vicalliose wrote:They hosted most of their content there according to him. I wouldn't know since I've never been there anyway.Shadowman wrote:You know they have their own site, right? He never needed to go through Megaupload for that.
I did, just to see what it was. It features both torrents and direct downloads, though it's possible the latter goes through Megaupload.Vicalliose wrote:Define "profit."Shadowman wrote:And S.978 is an amendment to an already-existing bill, about people making money off of streaming copyrighted content.
"Making money." As in, "you give someone money, they give you pirated content." I suppose it's the internet equivalent of selling bootleg DVDs.
Vicalliose wrote:If people are actually paying a person directly for streaming the content I believe it should fall under jurisdiction of "infringement." But if we're simply referring to ad revenue (typically used to keep a stream running) then I do not see a problem.
Vicalliose wrote:Either way, bootlegging typically is most common in places of the world where said bootlegged content is unavailable, or the official variation is too expensive for the person to pay for.
Vicalliose wrote:It's kind of hard to define "ownership" when so much content is digital now.
Wigglez wrote:Just remember. The sword is an extension of your arm. Use it as if you're going to karate chop someone with your really long sharp ass hand.
Wow. That's downright stubborn and closed-minded. You a business man yourself?Shadowman wrote:Vicalliose wrote:It's kind of hard to define "ownership" when so much content is digital now.
No it isn't, it's easier than ever.
Yeah it makes sense. Just another case where going after the uploader would be fruitless so they simply go after the site's owner. Allot of sites provide revenue to people through ads and such, youtube for instance, but it really does not work unless heavily moderated.Burn wrote:A person signs up, pays for a premium account, then uploads content. e.g. movies, tv shows, music etc.
That person then takes the links to the uploaded content and goes to the various forums/websites that are littered across the internet specifically for link sharing.
People then come along, click on the link, and download the uploaded content. The click then generates income for the uploader for which MU paid for.
It was a way to encourage to upload with them rather than one of the many other file hosting companies out there.
Registered users: Bing [Bot], chuckdawg1999, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Rodimus Prime