l i n u x - u s e r s - g r o u p - o f - d a v i s
L U G O D
 
Next Meeting:
April 21: Google Glass
Next Installfest:
TBD
Latest News:
Mar. 18: Google Glass at LUGOD's April meeting
Page last updated:
2011 Nov 29 14:51

The following is an archive of a post made to our 'vox mailing list' by one of its subscribers.

Report this post as spam:

(Enter your email address)
Re: [vox] Regarding: "Stop Online Piracy Act" that everybodyscreams about...
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [vox] Regarding: "Stop Online Piracy Act" that everybodyscreams about...



My understanding of the concerns is that this bill will net a lot of 
non-offenders without much court oversight (if any).

Think of the the scenario where any web 2.0 website (anything that 
allows users to post) could potentially be a target if someone happens 
to post something that is copyrighted or at least thought to be under 
copyright. The fear is that major companies could ask paypal and google 
to unlist a wikipedia article, or that action could be taken to cut off 
google if it happens to link to a website that some-one uploaded 
potentially copyrighted materials too without permission. It's not clear 
to me that music inadvertently in the background of a you-tube video has 
been cleared as fair use (though it ought to be). The bill seems to 
shift the burden from being a request to take down material(DCMA) to a 
we will cut off your business (ISP, payments, blacklist dns) unless you 
prove you're not hosting our materials within 5 days of notification, oh 
and this doesn't necessarily have to go to court or be proven 100% until 
you sue to get your domain name back at which point the burden of proof 
is on the wiki, forum, social network site that was just trying to 
provide a service, to prove they weren't doing anything illegal.

Specifically on the blacklist idea, people are concerned that entire 
regions will get blacklisted from US viewers, essentially meaning that 
we can no longer see 100% of the Internet. That by definition is 
censorship. Even if you're ok with Censorship of the internet is it fair 
to block 100% of a website if only 1% is offending material?

While I don't know if things would go this extreme I understand the fear 
that censorship brings and the potential to make it really difficult to 
implement any website that allows users to post without having to bend 
over backwards to admin/moderate (a cost that no startup or non-profit 
can afford).

Thanks,
Alex

PS: Search engines as usual will get targeted too, you think they do a 
poor job of listing the Internet(estimates are 10-15% of the web is 
indexed), wait until they have to censor what they list even more 
dramatically.

On 11/23/2011 01:29 PM, Mikies Runs Baal wrote:
> Actually, certain types of porn are illegal, not only in this country
> (USA), but other countries internationally.
>
> Secondly, speaking to the vagueness alluded to, all laws tend to be
> somewhat vague.
>
> As with all law, there has to be probable cause for an action to be
> initiated. This bill is no different, and further, spells out
> consequences for filing false reports by the copyright holder et al.
>
> After reading it from beginning to end, I, personally, think it is a
> good law. If enacted, it might give us the right to circumvent
> encryption protections on DVD and rip licensed copies to our personal
> computer or other digital devices strictly for personal use much like
> the current RIAA guideleines for ripping our music CD's to our personal
> devices. This would, of course, have to be tested with a lawsuit
> contesting the restrictions imposed by the DMCA on ripping DVD's with
> copy protection. This might be defended as a moot point since almost all
> DVD's I have bought within the last year now include a code for d/l'ing
> a digital copy to a personal digital device including my laptop or other
> device.
>
> Currently, court decisions (case laws) under the DMCA make it illegal to
> circumvent the encryption protections, but does NOT speak to the rights
> of licensed copy owners to rip for personal use on their digital
> devices. A close read of this law suggests it might be used to counter
> the DMCA on DVD's for personal use.
>
> As with all copyright issues, the licensed user MUST maintain a
> permanent copy of the original CD/DVD for "Fair Use Laws" to apply. Give
> away the original, lose the rights to the copy...
>
> I have an extensive library of VHS and DVD originals that have
> encryption protection in place. VHS's have a limited life-expectancy.
> So, I would definitely love to be able to convert to a DVD format, and
> since my laptop is my primary entertainment system when I am not home, I
> would love to be able to convert my entire library to digital format and
> store on my laptop or external HDD drive for portability.
>
> I would encourage everyone to read the the bill in its entirety.
>
> Here are the link/s again (all available links I could find, btw)
>
> online: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3261
>
> PDF:
> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=112_cong_bills&docid=f:h3261ih.txt.pdf
>
> PDF: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf
>
> online: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:h3261:
>
> Takes a couple hours to wade throught the text.
>
> IMHO,
>
> MJR
>
> On 11/23/2011 9:10 AM, Eric Rasmussen wrote:
>> Has anyone signed the whitehouse.gov petition?
>> https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/stop-e-parasite-act/SWBYXX55
>>
>> I've never e-signed a whitehouse petition so I'm curious to know
>> everyone's thoughts on whether or not its a meaningful step.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Eric
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Joseph Arruda<joseph.arruda@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>> I have read partway through http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3261 , and it is indeed pretty vague in its language (a dangerous thing in the hands of Big Content)...I'll probably finish by the end of the weekend if anyone wants a rundown.
>>>
>>> ja
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Bill Ward<bill@wards.net>   wrote:
>>>> Um, porn may be unsavory but it's not an illegal activity.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Mikies Runs Baal<mikiesrunsbaal.sec@sbcglobal.net>   wrote:
>>>>> Heya Bill,
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides me, has anyone bothered to d/l and read the actual bill to find
>>>>> out IF and WHAT the hubris is actually about.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to me that the major screamers are the ones hosting porn sites and
>>>>> other illegal activities.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO,
>>>>>
>>>>> MJR
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> vox mailing list
>>>>> vox@lists.lugod.org
>>>>> http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Check out my LEGO blog at http://www.brickpile.com
>>>> Follow/friend me: facebook.com/billward • flickr.com/photos/billward • twitter.com/williamward
>>>>
>>>>


_______________________________________________
vox mailing list
vox@lists.lugod.org
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox



LinkedIn
LUGOD Group on LinkedIn
Sign up for LUGOD event announcements
Your email address:
facebook
LUGOD Group on Facebook
'Like' LUGOD on Facebook:

Hosting provided by:
Sunset Systems
Sunset Systems offers preconfigured Linux systems, remote system administration and custom software development.

LUGOD: Linux Users' Group of Davis
PO Box 2082, Davis, CA 95617
Contact Us

LUGOD is a 501(c)7 non-profit organization
based in Davis, California
and serving the Sacramento area.
"Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.

Sponsored in part by:
Appahost Applications
For a significant contribution towards our projector, and a generous donation to allow us to continue meeting at the Davis Library.