| Author |
Message |
Methid Man
Title: Spawn of Billy Mays
Joined: Nov 23 2010
Location: Hackensack, NJ
Posts: 544
|
There's a bill that's being considered that if passed could give government and corporations the power to censor the internet. Sites like Youtube, Tumblr, Twitter, etc. could be shut down for allowing people to freely post certain content.
Here's the site where you can share your support: http://americancensorship.org/
No way am I gonna stand for the government to censor the internet...
|
|
|
      |
|
JoshWoodzy
Joined: May 22 2008
Location: Goshen, VA
Posts: 6544
|
"Steven Tyler (born Steven Victor Tallarico on March 26, 1948) is an American singer, songwriter, and multi-instrumentalist, best known as the frontman and lead singer of the Boston-based rock band Aerosmith, in which he also plays the harmonica, and occasional piano and percussion. He is known as the "Demon of Screamin'", due to his high screams and his wide vocal range. He is also known for his on-stage acrobatics. During his high-energy performances, he usually dresses in bright, colorful outfits with his trademark scarves hanging from his microphone stand. In the 1970s, Tyler rose to prominence as the frontman of Aerosmith, which released such milestone hard rock albums as Toys in the Attic and Rocks. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Tyler had a heavy drug and alcohol addiction, and the band's popularity waned.
He completed drug rehabilitation in 1986 and subsequently maintained sobriety for 12 years, but had a relapse with prescription painkillers in the late 2000s, for which he successfully received treatment in 2009.[1] After Aerosmith launched a remarkable comeback in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the albums Permanent Vacation, Pump, and Get a Grip, Tyler became a household name and has remained a relevant rock icon. As a result, he has since embarked on several solo endeavors including guest appearances on other artists' music, film and TV roles (including as a judge on American Idol), authoring a bestselling book, and solo work (including a Top 40 hit single in 2011). However, he has continued to record music and perform with Aerosmith, after more than 41 years in the band. He is included among Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers.[2] He was also ranked 3rd on Hit Parader's Top 100 Metal Vocalists of All Time. In 2001 he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame with Aerosmith, and he was the presenter when AC/DC was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2003."
|
|
|
   |
|
UsaSatsui
Title: The White Rabbit
Joined: May 25 2008
Location: Hiding
Posts: 7565
|
Oh, not this shit again...
The law does not allow for the government to censor the internet. The law provides remedies for people who own copyrighted material that is being distributed illegally to go after those who are doing so. It will not shut down YouTube, Twitter, or any other legitimate site.
The government keeping you from breaking the law and getting at your pirated shit is not "censorship".
|
|
|
  |
|
sidewaydriver
2010 SLF Tag Champ
Title: ( ͡� 
Joined: May 11 2008
Posts: 6160
|
I'm pro censorship. I'm pro a lot of things.
|
 Shake it, Quake it, Space Kaboom. |
|
  |
|
Ice2SeeYou
Title: Sexual Tyrannosaurus
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Location: South of Heaven
Posts: 1761
|
I consider myself lucky that I've never really been interested in pirating anything. I prefer to buy CD's rather than download music (legally or otherwise), and there's never a movie that I'm so anxious to see that I can't wait for it to come out on HBO or Netflix.
|
 Sydlexia.com - Where miserable bastards meet to call each other retards. |
|
  |
|
GPFontaine
Joined: Dec 06 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 11244
|
|
   |
|
UsaSatsui
Title: The White Rabbit
Joined: May 25 2008
Location: Hiding
Posts: 7565
|
I think it focuses a lot more on what the bill "could do" and less on what it "does". It uses scare tactics to present a worst-case scenario that's just barely plausible under the wording of the bill if a bunch of judges decide to take a nap on court day.
Honestly, it's like saying a law that allows police officers to carry guns gives them the power to shoot you for no reason.
|
|
|
  |
|
Optimist With Doubts
Title: Titlating
Joined: Dec 17 2007
Posts: 5042
|
Couldn't it lead to issues that YouTube already has? Videos are removed without even complaints from holders. Worst case scenario but what if sites are forced to remove images that contain trademarked material? Unlikely doesn't mean impossible. We are on both extremes. The world is over end censorship vs its all scare tactics quit whining
|
|
|
    |
|
Izaya Orihara
Title: King of Anime
Joined: Oct 26 2011
Location: Under your bed
Posts: 18
|
I stand against this. If the bill is passed then emulators and other things of the sort might end up being illegal. Plus if the internet censored then it most likly raise the chances of greater hacker numbers and people either rebeling, revolting ect.
|
 ?????: IZAYAAAAAAAA
Izaya: Shizuo, I'm right here! You don't have to yell at me everytime you see me!
Shizuo: Wasn't me
Looks at the crowd of raging, horny fangirls. |
|
   |
|
UsaSatsui
Title: The White Rabbit
Joined: May 25 2008
Location: Hiding
Posts: 7565
|
| Izaya Orihara wrote: |
| I stand against this. If the bill is passed then emulators and other things of the sort might end up being illegal. Plus if the internet censored then it most likly raise the chances of greater hacker numbers and people either rebeling, revolting ect. |
News flash - Roms are already illegal (emulators are in a sort of grey area).
The bill isn't making anything illegal, it's allowing companies to take action against people doing illegal things.
|
|
|
  |
|
username
Title: owner of a lonely heart
Joined: Jul 06 2007
Location: phoenix, az usa
Posts: 16135
|
| UsaSatsui wrote: |
| Izaya Orihara wrote: |
| I stand against this. If the bill is passed then emulators and other things of the sort might end up being illegal. Plus if the internet censored then it most likly raise the chances of greater hacker numbers and people either rebeling, revolting ect. |
News flash - Roms are already illegal (emulators are in a sort of grey area).
The bill isn't making anything illegal, it's allowing companies to take action against people doing illegal things. |
ROM's arent illegal if they are a back up copy of your game.
|

| Klimbatize wrote: |
| I'll eat a turkey sandwich while blowing my load |
|
|
     |
|
JoshWoodzy
Joined: May 22 2008
Location: Goshen, VA
Posts: 6544
|
| username wrote: |
| UsaSatsui wrote: |
| Izaya Orihara wrote: |
| I stand against this. If the bill is passed then emulators and other things of the sort might end up being illegal. Plus if the internet censored then it most likly raise the chances of greater hacker numbers and people either rebeling, revolting ect. |
News flash - Roms are already illegal (emulators are in a sort of grey area).
The bill isn't making anything illegal, it's allowing companies to take action against people doing illegal things. |
ROM's arent illegal if they are a back up copy of your game. |
Wrong. That's a huge misconception that the internet tries to make seem like truth.
"The backup/archival copy exception is a very narrow limitation relating to a copy being made by the rightful owner of an authentic game to ensure he or she has one in the event of damage or destruction of the authentic. Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not, or whether you have possession of a Nintendo ROM for a limited amount of time, i.e. 24 hours, it is illegal to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet."
|
|
|
   |
|
username
Title: owner of a lonely heart
Joined: Jul 06 2007
Location: phoenix, az usa
Posts: 16135
|
FROM THE INTERNET.
so, if you back up your own games, youre ok. thats what i meant.
|

| Klimbatize wrote: |
| I'll eat a turkey sandwich while blowing my load |
|
|
     |
|
Deadmau_5pra
Title: Amatuer film/podcaster
Joined: Feb 10 2009
Location: Chicago Area
Posts: 1126
|
| username wrote: |
FROM THE INTERNET.
so, if you back up your own games, youre ok. thats what i meant. |
 at someone being arrested for ROMs, someone would have to be trying to get caught.
|
|
|
  |
|
UsaSatsui
Title: The White Rabbit
Joined: May 25 2008
Location: Hiding
Posts: 7565
|
It's a moot point, since the devices that are used to dump roms aren't legal either.
|
|
|
  |
|
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 24887
|
I don't think anyone's ever been arrested for possessing ROMs, but distributing them is highly illegal and that is generally prosecuted. And if the censorship bill shuts down ROM sites, oh well. It probably should.
There seems to be an uneasy truce between the big ROM sites and the game developers where as long as they don't distribute Mario, Zelda, and other "protected" titles, the game developers won't go after them.
As for emulators, I'm pretty sure there's no gray area: they're completely legal. At least, if we are to take Bleem's legal victories as a precedent and a reasonable standard for the whole industry.
Honestly though, I don't understand why emulators are legal. Strictly speaking, they shouldn't be for any system which uses the NES business model. Nintendo and other console makers have been able to restrict games on their consoles by ensuring that games use proprietary software/hardware to run on their proprietary hardware.
Now, I believe with the NES, the issue is that Nintendo allowed the patents to lapse on the NES hardware. But I can't understand why Bleem was deemed legal at a time when PS1 was still in production.
I guess software constitutes intellectual property, but not hardware? Is that the issue?
And if that is the issue, emulation will be a bad legal position when retrogamers want to emulator Wii, 360, DSi, and other OS-based systems.
Actually, I guess it's an issue right now. Unless you own a Famicom Disk System, it is illegal to have a working FDS emulator. The emulator requires a ROM of the FDS BIOS in order to work, and the BIOS is illegal to own or distribute unless you have backed it up from own personal copy.
|
|
|
     |
|
UsaSatsui
Title: The White Rabbit
Joined: May 25 2008
Location: Hiding
Posts: 7565
|
| Syd Lexia wrote: |
| I guess software constitutes intellectual property, but not hardware? Is that the issue? |
Pretty much, yes. Software is code, so it's covered under copyright, and particularly in the case of a rom, it's code that's directly copied. Hardware is covered under a patent, and even though the software that runs the hardware is copyrighted, emulators use original code to run themselves.
|
|
|
  |
|
Hacker
Banned
Joined: Sep 13 2008
Posts: 3129
|
Usa I want to hear your opinion on GP's video as well,
Now separately and not directed at Usa, but rather to anyone wanting to give their opinion.
If this passes can you say with 100% certainty that protect IP won't get abused?
Can you honestly say that the government won't use a legal loophole to shut down a site?
Here's some text from the bill 9cop
| Protect IP wrote: |
(7) the term ‘‘Internet site dedicated to infringing activities’’ means an Internet site that—
(A) has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the—
(i) reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works, in complete or substantially complete form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement under section 501 of title 17, |
So let's use SydLexia.com as an example. A vast contribution to the articles on the homepage consist of copyrighted Nintendo trademarks. While Syd isn't making money off of any of these articles, he's still using their copyrighted works. Well under that section this site is little more than forums and a wiki without the articles, so it falls under ‘‘Internet site dedicated to infringing activities’’. So Nintendo could say they don't like this site and either demand that it all be taken down, or simply request the domain name Sydlexia.com to be blocked. They could also pursue a third route and sue Syd.
Also, on the note of legal loopholes, their abuse is constant, and whose to say that the government won't use this to shut down videos supporting groups like Anonymous just because they might use a few seconds of audio from a video or song. Or because most of the videos use the character V from V for Vendetta? Or even force sites to remove videos and pictures of anonymous activists just because they might have V's mask in them?
That doesn't only apply to Anonymous.
Peta just had their whole mario's tanooki suit issue, because Mario is on the peta site in a small flash game and a picture Nintendo could submit a claim to have it removed from their site, or shut down.
Also this bill puts forums and social networking sites at risk because of everything their users post.
So remember these?
Because of this post, under the Protect IP act Syd just became at risk because I posted copyrighted sprites on his forum. Not to mention he hosts those images.
|
|
|
  |
|
AtmanRyu
Title: The Wandering Dragon
Joined: Jun 25 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 986
|
First of all: Really Izaya? Of all possible examples, you brought ROMS into the discussion? REALLY?
Anyway.
Let's try this from a different angle: Who here has dealt with DRM? For those who don't know what it is, here's a quick definition: https://www.eff.org/issues/drm
Anyway, DRM was meant to deal with piracy and viruses. Instead, it brought annoyance and headaches to those who purchased the products legally, while hackers on the other hand laughed at the companies' face by cracking their DRM in record time. Honest users got punished while pirates innovate ways to go around these laws. Case in point, most form of piracy prevention end up backfiring badly.
This law is not the end of the world. It is however giving leverage to people who are, let's face it, looking for their own self-interest, leading to misguided actions that might end up hurting us in the process, because the law is vague enough to be misinterpreted in the best case scenario, or abused in the worst case scenario.
For instance, anyone remember The Room fiasco? The one in which Obscura Lupa and Nostalgia Critic from the TGWTG site had to take down their reviews of The Room because a representative named John from Wiseau Studios filed a takedown notice against the film? Despite of how you feel about copyright and fair use, the move at the end caused what's called The Streisand Effect, not to mention make Tommy Wiseau look like the bad guy, since these reviews were practically advertisements for his movie. Now imagine something like this going to a large scale.
Like Hacker pointed out, what's to guarantee its proper use?
On a side note, this is an interesting take on piracy from a middle ground point of view: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/piracy
|
|
|
    |
|
UsaSatsui
Title: The White Rabbit
Joined: May 25 2008
Location: Hiding
Posts: 7565
|
|
  |
|
Alowishus
Joined: Aug 04 2009
Posts: 2515
|
This isn't about censorship really it's about legality of downloading and why downloading illegally is done.
| Syd Lexia wrote: |
There seems to be an uneasy truce between the big ROM sites and the game developers where as long as they don't distribute Mario, Zelda, and other "protected" titles, the game developers won't go after them.
|
This is my biggest problem with the whole illegality of downloading.
I'm talking in the case of roms in general here. I have no problem downloading say NES, SNES, Genesis roms. Why?
Corporations don't sell those products anymore, this is my whole problem. They don't provide the products but yet expect to be allowed to sue someone who acquires it illegally.
Now i know what you may be thinking, it's a niche product and i am being highly unreasonable. Yes i am being unreasonable and unrealistic here but so are the companies.
If they don't sell you directly the product brand new through stores how else can you get it?
1. Through used. Now let's talk about used here. First off...the developer/publisher e.g. Nintendo doesn't even make money off this because it's a used sale. The games are rare and usually overpriced. Sure you may want some shit like Fifa 95, there's hundreds of copies of that going for like 1p on ebay. You want Zelda? Enjoy forking out 20quid USED for it online. The game wouldn't have been more expensive than that when it sold back in the early 90s new! So in this case why should i have to pay for overpriced products?
2. Online. I know as soon as you read this here most of you probably said: Wii Store. I won't accept that as an answer. If i want a product i don't want a shitty digital copy of it. Although i buy games on steam and a lot of them at that, it's not something i enjoy doing. With DRM etc. and the fact that with a flick of a switch steam can be switched off and my money has went down the drain. That is one reason why i don't accept it. I have no other choice. Have you bought a PC game in store/physical copy recently? You go home, put in the disc and link it to steam. So it's going through that anyway!!
If i want a product i want to purchase it in the way i want it. I want physical copies of the games and not digital uploads. It should be pointed out how lazy this actually is...you can get the roms online and set them up in a matter of seconds. Yet with Wii Store you get the exact same thing and have to pay.
I'm not saying it's not appropriate or legitimate. It totally is but as a consumer it's not how i want to receive said products. I enjoy the feeling of having the cartridge in my hand and sticking it in, having the artwork/manualls/box etc. With digital it is taken away.
Of course with roms you get the exact same thing, i don't get any box art etc. Even though the Wii Store is legitimate i still would take a rom over it, it's pretty weird when it comes down to it, it's literally the scenario broken down of:
I won't pay for the digital game in the store, i will download the game as a rom though, i ONLY do this because the games aren't supplied in the format i want.
That format is unrealistic but i still think it's a valid argument.
This extends beyond roms and into cds. CDs and DVD are totally different to roms as they generally are still in print. It's often the failure of chain stores to stock the products which is the problem.
E.g. Say the new Pearl Jam album came out, i would go into the store and buy it.
Pearl Jam obviously release on major labels so their albums are widely available.
Let's take another example. The album 'For Your Own Special Sweetheart' was released by Jawbox on Atlantic - a major label who hosted the likes of Led Zeppelin.
Yet i cannot buy this in store. Why? Okay you say Supply/Demand. If it's not popular they won't stock it. That is a stupid presumption. I don't expect orders of hundreds of copies to be shipped to the stores for sale. If they had literally 2/3 ordered then the small market could be satisfied, but no.
...and you think i am being unrealistic? I go into huge music stores like HMV with lists of albums to get. I approach the cashier and ask if they stock any of the listed albums and we are talking a long list.
Okay Jawbox aren't exactly hugely popular but what about bands like Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden. They are pretty well known/famous, yet hardly any of their albums are stocked. These are albums which are definitely in print and are essentially mainstream bands. No albums available. Pixies albums? None.
...and when they do have them they are sold for about 15quid...to put that into perspective they are sold for about half of that.
Don't get me started on out of print material...if an album has been released on a major label then there was been interest in it at some point unless the band was a total failure. With that in mind there will be an interest in that bands material. Putting it out of print is a disservice to consumers.
What do i do then? I download it of course.
tl;dr The problem also lies with the fact that major corporations do not adequately provide the products in demand. They don't stock them or make them difficult to purchase so the easier alternative is to download them. I find it absurd that you would sue someone for downloading a product which you don't supply yourself to an appropriate standard.
EDIT: Quickly take steam again. The fact that they can just pull the plug is ridiculous and controls the consumer. It's the only way you can receive those products and like i said physical links to steam but they control your right to use them.
Also i will throw out here the problems of digital vs physical.
Let's say i want a stick of gum, i walk into the store and lift the gum, the gum is 25pence. I pay 25pence directly or i receive change and then i leave the store with my product.
Buy digital (let's talk WiiStore and i believe Xboxlive store does something similar).
I go to online store i would like to buy Game X. Game X is 200 points. Okay but real currency isn't in points... you have to buy points duh!
Okay i will buy 200 points. LOL NO. You HAVE TO BUY 1000 POINTS.
B-b-b-but i just want the 200 point item. LOL TOUGH SHIT, buy 1000 points.
This is another serious problem. If i want shit i want to buy it directly and not have to waste my money paying more than i should/convert my money into a psuedocurrency.
I understand why they do it but to the consumer i find it to be a total farce.
EDIT2: Actually on censorship. I really wouldn't worry about it. These things never seem to get passed.
|
|
|
  |
|
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 24887
|
| Hacker wrote: |
| So let's use SydLexia.com as an example. A vast contribution to the articles on the homepage consist of copyrighted Nintendo trademarks. While Syd isn't making money off of any of these articles, he's still using their copyrighted works. Well under that section this site is little more than forums and a wiki without the articles, so it falls under ‘‘Internet site dedicated to infringing activities’’. So Nintendo could say they don't like this site and either demand that it all be taken down, or simply request the domain name Sydlexia.com to be blocked. They could also pursue a third route and sue Syd. |
This falls under fair use. I am pretty sure that there have been recent rulings that "Let's Play" videos do not fall under fair use though, as they show large amounts of game play, sometimes going as far as to show the entire game.
|
|
|
     |
|
Hacker
Banned
Joined: Sep 13 2008
Posts: 3129
|
| Syd Lexia wrote: |
| Hacker wrote: |
| So let's use SydLexia.com as an example. A vast contribution to the articles on the homepage consist of copyrighted Nintendo trademarks. While Syd isn't making money off of any of these articles, he's still using their copyrighted works. Well under that section this site is little more than forums and a wiki without the articles, so it falls under ‘‘Internet site dedicated to infringing activities’’. So Nintendo could say they don't like this site and either demand that it all be taken down, or simply request the domain name Sydlexia.com to be blocked. They could also pursue a third route and sue Syd. |
This falls under fair use. I am pretty sure that there have been recent rulings that "Let's Play" videos do not fall under fair use though, as they show large amounts of game play, sometimes going as far as to show the entire game. |
I'll admit it, I can be wrong. That was just a bit of an impression I got reading through the bill.
Fun fact: This bill will also censor sites that sell medicine illegally.
Not that selling medicine illegally is okay, just a bit of a fact.
|
|
|
  |
|
GPFontaine
Joined: Dec 06 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 11244
|
I'll admit, I don't 100% understand the fine details of this bill. The wording is difficult to understand and the generalizations make my mind wander further than I imagine the general population's would.
However, isn't that what lawyers do? Some of them at least? They take the most extreme portion of a situation and apply it to their case to prove a point.
USA, I think that I actually agree with you. From what I can tell, this doesn't look as bad as people make it out to be... however given how generalized it is and how hard it is to understand, I could definitely see it being abused.
If a law must be created for this purpose, it should be more clearly defined than it currently is. It should be easy to understand for both those who it protects as well as those who it attacks. Right now it is not and that is reason enough for me to say that it shouldn't become law.
Lastly, if you were to ask me what makes a person an expert in the field of television, I could explain to you the actor, the mechanic, the cable company, and the studios that make the content. However, if you ask what makes a person an expert in the the field of the internet, I would argue that every who uses it is. The internet by nature gives as much power and control to each individual. ISPs are the people who might control the physical portion of it, however the content is up to the rest of humanity. Laws that govern such a universal tool really need to be very well crafted... if they even can be.
If people consider the internet to be "free", in terms of Americans are "free" from oppression, I would consider that any motion to reduce that free choice would be met with powerful opposition. Once again, any law that is going to do this should be clear and very well thought out.
|
|
|
   |
|
Fighter_McWarrior
Title: Gun of Brixton
Joined: Jun 05 2011
Location: Down by the River
Posts: 1087
|
I'm so glad that this forum sees common sense. So many place I frequent are just rabid about this fucking bill, and it's not really doing anything that bad. There's so much worry on what the Justice Department could do with it as opposed to what they will.
For instance, there's one thread on a forum I go to where the posters are just convinced that this is going to end fandom as we know it. That the Justice Department is going to use the bill shut down fansites for copyright violation. Could they? Maybe. Will they? Not a chance. They have better things to do than go after your shitty Naruto fanfiction.
There's just so much misinformation and bullshit fearmongering over this bill. People who produce intellectual property have every right to make money off of it. I don't necessarily approve of the way this bill is worded in a few places, but the goal is pretty admirable.
|
|
|
  |
|
|
|
|