Caedes
Upload Images
Welcome guest
Log In or Register
User Stats
- 1 total users online
- 52 users active today
- 259180 total members
- +show users online
Non-art Website Issues
Discussion Board -> Non-art Website Issues -> SOPA & PIPA
SOPA & PIPA
Comments
Post a Comment - Subscribe to this discussion
Thanks for the understandable explanation.
I have been following this on the news and found it quite confusing.
I had just waded through Wikipedia's own page on the subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
I have been following this on the news and found it quite confusing.
I had just waded through Wikipedia's own page on the subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
0∈
[?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
Rather than me try to explain PIPA/SOPA ... here's a vid produced that covers the salient points against, as they are now written/drafted:
"PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet" (Video is in HD, so.. if it loads too slowly or is unplayable for you, click on "HD" to switch to a lower resolution presentation)
Take note that an internet user would still be able to access those probable and targeted sites blacklisted by simply entering the IP address.
And on that note.. this is where these two acts have drawn criticism from those in the know, where Domain Name System is concerned. And in turn, the stability and security of the interwebs/net.
"Online protests against SOPA and PIPA"
And I quote;
"Outside of the battle of free speech versus intellectual property and the potential chilling effects of these bills, the technical enforcement methods in these bills include monkeying with DNS in a way that breaks DNSSEC."
And..
"We've reported on the issue before, here[link] and here[link]. On Saturday, the White House showed that they understand:
We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk."
"PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet" (Video is in HD, so.. if it loads too slowly or is unplayable for you, click on "HD" to switch to a lower resolution presentation)
Take note that an internet user would still be able to access those probable and targeted sites blacklisted by simply entering the IP address.
And on that note.. this is where these two acts have drawn criticism from those in the know, where Domain Name System is concerned. And in turn, the stability and security of the interwebs/net.
"Online protests against SOPA and PIPA"
And I quote;
"Outside of the battle of free speech versus intellectual property and the potential chilling effects of these bills, the technical enforcement methods in these bills include monkeying with DNS in a way that breaks DNSSEC."
And..
"We've reported on the issue before, here[link] and here[link]. On Saturday, the White House showed that they understand:
We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk."
0∈
[?]
One of the critical components of presenting points in a debate, publishing an article, et al.. lies in citing sources.
Particularly, if one is not an authority on the subject.
I haven't read the entirety of the drafts of the two bills/acts.
Fine to have an opinion on something, express them at the 'water cooler talks' (i.e. not a serious discussion, per se).. it's another thing to disseminate possible misinformation, to my mind.
So..
I posted some links, quoted some relevant sections from accredited sources. Specifically the criticisms of the two bills/acts with respect to the stability and security of the interwebs/net.
Of note and back to the 'debate', Vint Cerf, who was one of the founding fathers of the 'Internet' (now Google vice president) signed an open letter to Congress and concluded;
"The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open Internet, both domestically and abroad. We cannot have a free and open Internet unless its naming and routing systems sit above the political concerns and objectives of any one government or industry. To date, the leading role the US has played in this infrastructure has been fairly uncontroversial because America is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a neutral bastion of free expression. If the US begins to use its central position in the network for censorship that advances its political and economic agenda, the consequences will be far-reaching and destructive."
"Senators, Congressmen, we believe the Internet is too important and too valuable to be endangered in this way, and implore you to put these bills aside."
Now tell me.. who carries more weight on this, you, me.. or the guy that puts back the cup he used at the water cooler?
Or, in the instance of this post.. Vint Cerf?
Particularly, if one is not an authority on the subject.
I haven't read the entirety of the drafts of the two bills/acts.
Fine to have an opinion on something, express them at the 'water cooler talks' (i.e. not a serious discussion, per se).. it's another thing to disseminate possible misinformation, to my mind.
So..
I posted some links, quoted some relevant sections from accredited sources. Specifically the criticisms of the two bills/acts with respect to the stability and security of the interwebs/net.
Of note and back to the 'debate', Vint Cerf, who was one of the founding fathers of the 'Internet' (now Google vice president) signed an open letter to Congress and concluded;
"The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open Internet, both domestically and abroad. We cannot have a free and open Internet unless its naming and routing systems sit above the political concerns and objectives of any one government or industry. To date, the leading role the US has played in this infrastructure has been fairly uncontroversial because America is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a neutral bastion of free expression. If the US begins to use its central position in the network for censorship that advances its political and economic agenda, the consequences will be far-reaching and destructive."
"Senators, Congressmen, we believe the Internet is too important and too valuable to be endangered in this way, and implore you to put these bills aside."
Now tell me.. who carries more weight on this, you, me.. or the guy that puts back the cup he used at the water cooler?
Or, in the instance of this post.. Vint Cerf?
0∈
[?]
Good point Mr.C&P but besides what you are told what do you think?
0∈
[?]
I understand where mindmelt is coming from. In discussion or debate, citing sources is a question of supporting your belief or stance. A question of how you interpret and understand the information you are using. What you posted is useful info Les, but his question is - what is your opinion of it, where do you stand on the issue, and why?
Personally my understanding is that there are 2 issues. One is that there are several things that are either too generic or not restrictive enough in terms of definition so that they actually would apply to the things they are supposed to address, and therefore would be ripe for abuse via hundreds of loopholes, and make them completely ineffective for their stated purposes.
One of the primary loopholes is what defines a domestic site vs a foreign website - i.e ".com", ".org", and ".us" would be considered domestic sites, ALTHOUGH it is possible for foreign entities to use those domain identifiers, and operate them within the U.S. Likewise, places like reddit which operate internationally offload some site traffic to their u.k. site, which means that some blog posters, and other areas of the site would be defined as "foreign" because their "domain" is ".co.uk".
The other issue amounts to part of the net protocols of how the internet operates, and would effectively dismantle many security measures and factors currently in place, because those rely on specific technology which has to do with how names are used and assigned, a portion of which these bills seek to change. Therefore in the name of making the internet "safer" and less open to copyright infringements, it would actually weaken the entire structure, by doing it in this manner.
On the basis of those issues, I am also opposed to these bills, because I believe that laws need to be set up so that they are actually effective in combatting what they are aimed at, with restrictions that limit collateral damage, and I do not believe that these have been.
I also believe that it is useless to write additional laws for issues that can be dealt with by enforcing current laws. The DMCA is already being abused on both sides (takedown notices served by companies that don't like how their stuff is being used, despite the usage clearly falling under "fair usage" protections, sites demanding that DMCA notices be worded according to their own personal version when what is laid out is clear in the DMCA and they are required to take ANY validly worded notice). However, in the main - it serves the purpose that it is intended to. It provides relief on both sides, and an avenue for recourse. Sites can be taken down for continual non-compliance with the DMCA, and I believe there is a limit of their responsibility for what users upload at a certain point.
For example - an antiques dealer. It is possible for an antiques dealer to be selling merchandise that has been stolen. However, there is a limit to their responsibility for authentication.
Situation 1: If an antiques dealer knowingly accepts merchandise they are aware is stolen, they are entirely complicit in defrauding both the original owner, and the new owner - because the new owner isn't getting their money back if the item is found to be in their possession. It just goes back to the original owner. On the other hand if it's never found, the original owner is out the investment.
Situation 2: If an antiques dealer accepts merchandise from someone they know is unreputable, they hold at least partial fault while not being fully complicit, because they are aware that any authentication may be forged, and cannot be trusted. If they continually accept merchandise from such a source, their amount of personal responsibility increases - as a matter of how they operate and what they facilitate.
Situation 3: If an antiques dealer is completely unaware of any issues with either the item or the seller and there are no red flags occurring at any point of the sale, they cannot be held responsible for what they don't know - even though they hold and are selling a stolen item.
The DMCA already effectively provides provisions for these 3 situations and penalties possible, and it is up to people and the gov't to pursue them, not to write new laws to go overkill on enforcement in the attempt to stamp out any possible occurrence, which would effectively damage and hold people in situation 3 responsible for having the stolen merchandise.
Personally my understanding is that there are 2 issues. One is that there are several things that are either too generic or not restrictive enough in terms of definition so that they actually would apply to the things they are supposed to address, and therefore would be ripe for abuse via hundreds of loopholes, and make them completely ineffective for their stated purposes.
One of the primary loopholes is what defines a domestic site vs a foreign website - i.e ".com", ".org", and ".us" would be considered domestic sites, ALTHOUGH it is possible for foreign entities to use those domain identifiers, and operate them within the U.S. Likewise, places like reddit which operate internationally offload some site traffic to their u.k. site, which means that some blog posters, and other areas of the site would be defined as "foreign" because their "domain" is ".co.uk".
The other issue amounts to part of the net protocols of how the internet operates, and would effectively dismantle many security measures and factors currently in place, because those rely on specific technology which has to do with how names are used and assigned, a portion of which these bills seek to change. Therefore in the name of making the internet "safer" and less open to copyright infringements, it would actually weaken the entire structure, by doing it in this manner.
On the basis of those issues, I am also opposed to these bills, because I believe that laws need to be set up so that they are actually effective in combatting what they are aimed at, with restrictions that limit collateral damage, and I do not believe that these have been.
I also believe that it is useless to write additional laws for issues that can be dealt with by enforcing current laws. The DMCA is already being abused on both sides (takedown notices served by companies that don't like how their stuff is being used, despite the usage clearly falling under "fair usage" protections, sites demanding that DMCA notices be worded according to their own personal version when what is laid out is clear in the DMCA and they are required to take ANY validly worded notice). However, in the main - it serves the purpose that it is intended to. It provides relief on both sides, and an avenue for recourse. Sites can be taken down for continual non-compliance with the DMCA, and I believe there is a limit of their responsibility for what users upload at a certain point.
For example - an antiques dealer. It is possible for an antiques dealer to be selling merchandise that has been stolen. However, there is a limit to their responsibility for authentication.
Situation 1: If an antiques dealer knowingly accepts merchandise they are aware is stolen, they are entirely complicit in defrauding both the original owner, and the new owner - because the new owner isn't getting their money back if the item is found to be in their possession. It just goes back to the original owner. On the other hand if it's never found, the original owner is out the investment.
Situation 2: If an antiques dealer accepts merchandise from someone they know is unreputable, they hold at least partial fault while not being fully complicit, because they are aware that any authentication may be forged, and cannot be trusted. If they continually accept merchandise from such a source, their amount of personal responsibility increases - as a matter of how they operate and what they facilitate.
Situation 3: If an antiques dealer is completely unaware of any issues with either the item or the seller and there are no red flags occurring at any point of the sale, they cannot be held responsible for what they don't know - even though they hold and are selling a stolen item.
The DMCA already effectively provides provisions for these 3 situations and penalties possible, and it is up to people and the gov't to pursue them, not to write new laws to go overkill on enforcement in the attempt to stamp out any possible occurrence, which would effectively damage and hold people in situation 3 responsible for having the stolen merchandise.
1∈
[?]
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult...
I see the bills have been 'shelved' in view of the protests.
The worlds largest file-sharing site had been shut down without the aid of any new legislation which surely says something.
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/megaupload-pirating-accused-remanded-in-custody-4694527
The worlds largest file-sharing site had been shut down without the aid of any new legislation which surely says something.
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/megaupload-pirating-accused-remanded-in-custody-4694527
0∈
[?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
Kim Dotcom has been REFUSED BAIL
I think the man is a maniac. Read THIS
He became a NZ permanent resident in 2010 - perhaps proof that money can buy anything. 'Earnings' of $115,000.00 a day - money talks !
Convictions for insider trading and embezzlement, indictments on criminal copyright infringement charges.
He lives in the most expensive home in the country (and he did four million dollars worth of renovations to it)and yet he is not allowed to purchase it because he did not meet the "good character" test.
His pool is filled with imported Spring Water, but don't go to his home expecting to take photos - photography is banned.
If the FBI suceeds in extraditing him he will face charges of conspiring to commit racketeering, conspiring to commit money laundering, copyright infringement and aiding and abetting copyright infringement.
He has already had $16 million worth of cars and money from financial institutions siezed. Strange that someone who says he has nothing to hide has secret rooms and self locking doors.
Innocent until proven guilty of course but I would say good riddance to him.
I think the man is a maniac. Read THIS
He became a NZ permanent resident in 2010 - perhaps proof that money can buy anything. 'Earnings' of $115,000.00 a day - money talks !
Convictions for insider trading and embezzlement, indictments on criminal copyright infringement charges.
He lives in the most expensive home in the country (and he did four million dollars worth of renovations to it)and yet he is not allowed to purchase it because he did not meet the "good character" test.
His pool is filled with imported Spring Water, but don't go to his home expecting to take photos - photography is banned.
If the FBI suceeds in extraditing him he will face charges of conspiring to commit racketeering, conspiring to commit money laundering, copyright infringement and aiding and abetting copyright infringement.
He has already had $16 million worth of cars and money from financial institutions siezed. Strange that someone who says he has nothing to hide has secret rooms and self locking doors.
Innocent until proven guilty of course but I would say good riddance to him.
0∈
[?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
Sounds like the average UK footballer, pop star, or other celebrity. Certainly not the richest man on earth. Tim Cook, CEO of Apples earns 10 times that.
In other news, Megadownload is up and running again.
In other news, Megadownload is up and running again.
0∈
[?]
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." Ansel Adams - Gallery - Web Site - follow me on Twitter.
Perhaps 'earns' is the operative word :)
Megadownload ?
Did you mean Magaupload ? - FBI notice is all I see.
I dont think they are connected but maybe I'm wrong
Megadownload ?
Did you mean Magaupload ? - FBI notice is all I see.
I dont think they are connected but maybe I'm wrong
0∈
[?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
yes, my mistyping. The FBI have indeed seized the .com address. It pops up occasionally as an IP address.
0∈
[?]
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." Ansel Adams - Gallery - Web Site - follow me on Twitter.
Just like the big corporate/business types...Always ridin' on the backs of others :P
0∈
[?]
"Put up...or SHUT UP!" Visit Jhihmoac's Gallery
I'd like to note that demonoid.com - one of the hugest violators and hosts of copyrighted materials, was taken down with a massive coordinated effort by multiple parties, working under current laws.
As stated above, my issue with SOPA and PIPA was that they were unnecessary because the already existing laws could be used to address the issues these laws were designed to deal with. This takedown, and others that I am sure will be following, is proof of that.
As stated above, my issue with SOPA and PIPA was that they were unnecessary because the already existing laws could be used to address the issues these laws were designed to deal with. This takedown, and others that I am sure will be following, is proof of that.
3∈
[?]
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult...
Essentially they are DCMA on steroids. If a copyright holder sees a copyright violation on a site they will be able to get a court directive for that site to remove the offending artwork in 24hrs, or the site is removed from the internet. It will not show up on search engines, ISP will not take you there etc.
This is not just the page that contains the material, but the whole site! I am not sure that the page actually has to be specified in the court order, but I have not gone into to much detail so I may be wrong.
An example. If an image is posted on Caedes, or found to have been posted, the copyright owner can demand that Caedes removes all and any copyright violations of that copyright holder in 24hrs. That is, someone would have to go through all the images on Caedes and check that they did not contain any copyright violation, and remove those that did. If not, poof, Caedes disappears. This site would still exist, but you would not be able to get to it, from anywhere in the world.
It would no longer be enough to get the poster of the material to say they own it, that is no defence under SOPA. One of the reasons the bills are unpopular is the obvious miss-use that they can be put to. We could probably get other sites taken down for the type of copyright infringements they have at present on some members here. However, it would only take one posted image here for the same thing to happen to Caedes.
This is unlikely to happen to Caedes for one simple reason. The site is heavily moderated.
I mention this because of the recent threads on the posting of copyright material. Moderation is good and necessary, and will become increasingly so if these bills get passed. We should be glad of the effort that is put in.