FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM

LOG IN Forgot Login? Register General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board Search Terms:  Search Within:  topics posts since 2019 2018 posts 2017 posts 2016 posts 2015 posts 2014 posts 2013 posts 2012 posts 2011 posts 2010 posts 2009 posts 2008 posts 2007 posts 2006 posts 2005 posts 2004 posts 2003 posts 2002 posts 2001 posts 2000 posts users  search tips  You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2 3      Non-Film Score Discussion: Today is the Big Blackout!     1 2 3    NEXT   LAST   Last Post   Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 9:01 AM     By:   nxbusby491   (Member) I guess it goes without saying, since today is the big blackout in response to the Governemnts attempt to destroy the internet, to suggest all of you to write your rep or congressman. I'm quite frankly shocked FSM didn't go blackout. Its not just about piracy here. People should be entitled to what is theirs. I think everyone thinks this...despite maybe some who just see piracy as no problem. It is a problem, but this bill simply goes too far and would change the internet and rewrite the constitution. You have to really read about all the points of the bill to understand just how wrong this is. Funny how the supporters makes it seem like its just about downloading illegal movies, or other stuff. If this passes, I'll be waiting for the politician to get up there and recite Emperor Palpatine's speech from Revenge of the Sith how they just formed the first Galactic Empire.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 10:00 AM     By:   LeHah   (Member) If it was real censorship - how are you finding out about this? And how are you posting it on the internet and Facebook? And how is it all over Google and Sony and other major money-grabbing corporations? No, see the problem here is that the people leading this revolution are just the new fascists. All the ideas of freedom and liberty now are oppression in the future. Wikipedia is New Speak - its the distillation of the voice of an unknowing public that has to fight to define words in real time without thinking about the long-term effects and the whole of the internet is nothing now but entitlement. Twenty years ago, this was a place for academics and now its for anyone who can pay $20 month and *suddenly* their opinions are equal to anyone else's. I'm fine with all the sites everyone listed being shutdown - Facebook, Megaupload, whatever else. These things do not define me as a person, nor does Sony taking down torrents or Marvel Comics taking down fanart. I am a far greater sum than what my profile or journal or whatever else there is I put out there. Would it suck? Maybe - but these things also don't really make me happy either. I turn off the computer and am the same person. And if they take away my cellphone or whatever else, I'm still myself. This is nothing more than an uphill battle for entitlement - the owners want money, the kids don't want to give it and the government is acting like the parent. Everything about this is simply a seizure of power. Everyone keeps saying that this is about the people and power to the people and how the people should rule their government - but people run the government now, so what difference would there be? Everything everyone believes in oppresses someone else the moment that belief goes past your door or out your mouth. Right or left or centrist or liberal or neoconservative - everyone is only interested in their own backyard and abstractions be damned. No one is interested in liberty - everyone is interested in torrents and pornography and music and telling Michelle Bachman she looks horrible eating a corndog (and she does). (Also: look a the precedent they're setting. They're denying you access to something you want (and many have *donated* to) because of their own political beliefs. How is that fair to the end user? What if they were this adamantly against something YOU believed in and decided to close the site for that reason? This is juvenile people trying to play at being important.) Now... can we close this thread since its obviously politically charged?    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 10:25 AM     By:   gone   (Member) You have to really read about all the points of the bill to understand just how wrong this is. Is there any reasonable and accurate way to summarize those fine points? I had never heard of it til WikiP went blank. What are the most egregious fine points? (especially regarding free speach)    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 11:12 AM     By:   Sirusjr   (Member) First off, here is a fairly clear explanation of the law written by the wall street journal http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203735304577167261853938938-lMyQjAxMTAyMDEwODExNDgyWj.html The biggest problem with the bill is the suggestion that an entire site should be shut down if a user posts something that is later claimed to be copyrighted information. Rather than the old scheme under DMCA in which rights holders would have to request specific copyrighted information be taken down, this would allow the entire site to be removed based on similar claims of users posting copyrighted material. This would hurt sites like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube because the sites would have to constantly monitor for copyrighted material being posted or face shutdown of the entire site. While not everyone values these sites, they have created a new wave of freedom of expression for individuals. Individuals are now able to reach large audiences through posting videos on youtube (see many recent videos that have gone viral including girlscouts talking about the recent issue of allowing a transgender girl to join or the many coming out videos in the wake of the removal of don't ask don't tell). After how rights holders have recently abused their already fairly limited power under the DMCA to remove hostings of a promotional video by MEGAUPLOAD, I have no doubt that the broad definitions of infringing activity that the major labels and rights holders will stand behind will lead to some broad shutdowns. After-all, if the rights holders had their way, Youtube would have been shut down right away for all the copyrighted content that is posted every day. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/judge-gives-umg-24-hours-to-explain-takedown-spree.ars    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 12:47 PM     By:   gone   (Member) The biggest problem with the bill is the suggestion that an entire site should be shut down if a user posts something that is later claimed to be copyrighted information. Thanks! Yes, that is a major deal. Looks like I will no longer be able to link in to beautiful pieces of Delerue music on youtube now... or youtube at all if the site is brought down for any of the enormous amount of copyright infringed entries now avail.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 1:04 PM     By:   Michael24   (Member) ARGH!! I can't believe how many times I've clicked my Wikipedia bookmark between last night and this afternoon to look up some kind of info, only to be reminded of this blackout nonsense and have to try to find the info somewhere else.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 1:13 PM     By:   Sirusjr   (Member) ARGH!! I can't believe how many times I've clicked my Wikipedia bookmark between last night and this afternoon to look up some kind of info, only to be reminded of this blackout nonsense and have to try to find the info somewhere else. I read somewhere that Wikipedia posts information on their site if you click "more info" on the blackout page that tells you how to get around the blackout. I haven't even seen the blackout page myself when visiting Wikipedia.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 1:49 PM     By:   nuts_score   (Member) If you have javascript disabled you'll have no problems getting around the blackout sites. Also, I can't make heads or tails of LeHah's post above. What is he saying in all of that?    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 1:55 PM     By:   LeHah   (Member) Also, I can't make heads or tails of LeHah's post above. What is he saying in all of that? Apologies for that - I culled it from some Facebook comments I was making, so its a little all over the place. My thoughts are thus: right or wrong, the internet brought this on its self by stealing for as long and as much as it has.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 2:47 PM     By:   sprocket   (Member) I'm reminded of what it says in the front of most books I've read over many years... "No part of this publication may be reproduced, stores in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without prior written permission of the publisher ... or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization ..." So in other words, there has always been a blanket prohibition to reproducing any part of a work if prior permission has not been given. I haven't read the law, but I think if this means that in the future, people will have to come to the rights holder first to ask for permission to post things on the Internet, then everything is just going in line with previously defined laws. I also don't think there is a prohibition for Youtube or anyone else to go to the original publisher and getting into a special agreement, much like reviewers have the right to excerpt portions of a book. It is in the interest of publishers to get their works exposed, so they have an interest in disseminating the works (through appropriate channels). That's why they spend so much on advertising. Sites such as Youtube, Facebook, etc. can be ridiculously cheap advertising and I doubt it is in anyone’s interest to shut these sites down. Since Youtube is ultimately responsible for what is posted to its website, doesn't this new law just add accountability to that responsibility? Just my thoughts.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 2:55 PM     By:   gone   (Member) Since Youtube is ultimately responsible for what is posted to its website, doesn't this new law just add accountability to that responsibility? 90%+ of what I view/hear on youtube is a copyright infringement, I would estimate. I imagine they could clean up most of that fairly easily if they really tried, basically by getting very tough (account deletion) for offenders. Some reasonably sophisticated software could weed out a lot of the suspect content. Til now it has often been an 'anything goes, Wild West' site. Cleaning it up will not be the end of the world or of free speech by any stretch.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 3:19 PM     By:   Sirusjr   (Member) Since Youtube is ultimately responsible for what is posted to its website, doesn't this new law just add accountability to that responsibility? Well that is how it would have been if they hadn't passed the DMCA. DMCA essentially made it so that web sites that host content such as Youtube aren't liable for the material posted on their site by their users (assuming that these users are actually free to post whatever they want) as long as they comply with takedown notices timely after receiving one. So through all the lawsuits that Youtube has been involved in with rights holders wanting to essentially shut them down, Youtube has implemented a system through which takedown notices are automated and users will have their accounts suspended if they have three videos they posted removed. My understanding is that this works by having some software searching the videos and comparing them to certain audio clips or video clips identified by the copyright holder as within their rights to request removal. This is because it would take forever for Youtube to hire actual people to check whether or not something is copyrighted material and should be removed. SOPA thus takes away a lot of the protections from legal liability that were built into the DMCA when it was originally passed. These protections were put in place precisely to protect sites like youtube and facebook from liability for the content posted by users. Absent such protections, it wouldn't be cost effective for those sites to operate because they would be constantly worried about the possibility of liability. For more information about how the DMCA has been able to foster innovation in the internet, read this post: http://volokh.com/2011/10/19/hey-2d-circuit/    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 4:07 PM     By:   nuts_score   (Member) Apologies for that - I culled it from some Facebook comments I was making, so its a little all over the place. My thoughts are thus: right or wrong, the internet brought this on its self by stealing for as long and as much as it has. Fair enough. Though the honest always repay their theft. I'm thinking of myself here, as I'm not ashamed to say I have pirated things in the past but if it's something I truly love and appreciate I always go out for the real thing.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 4:10 PM     By:   nuts_score   (Member) Here's a fun article pointing out a slight against those who support the supporters of PIPA... http://www.vice.com/read/pipa-supporters-copyright-violations    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 4:50 PM     By:   BasilFSM   (Member) I'm just going to leave this here because nothing else sums up my opinion better. http://askfirestarterspitfire.tumblr.com/post/16063004263/sopa-is-bad-and-congress-should-feel-bad-crash    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 5:44 PM     By:   nuts_score   (Member) I'm just going to leave this here because nothing else sums up my opinion better. http://askfirestarterspitfire.tumblr.com/post/16063004263/sopa-is-bad-and-congress-should-feel-bad-crash Excellent link Basil. It should be noted that a number of supporters of the bill have withdrawn their support as the day goes on... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/sopa-blackout-sopa-and-pipa-lose-three-co-sponsors-in-congress.html    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 6:49 PM     By:   LeHah   (Member) I'm just going to leave this here because nothing else sums up my opinion better. Really? I thought your Twitter was much more accurate to your opinion. Disgusting.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 7:54 PM     By:   dan the man   (Member) I was going to make a comment on this but i will if 2 gentleman ZOOBA AND MALEFICIO offer their viewpoints on this issue.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 10:41 PM     By:   dan the man   (Member) Interesting, only 17 comments from people on this board on a issue that can decide the fate and lifestyle of many people who find the computer, no less You Tube the past few years a big ingredient for our leisure time and enjoyment. No, the decision may not effect my job and my money, but it will affect how i live my life around my job during my leisure free time and is that not true with many on this board?    Posted:   Jan 18, 2012 - 11:07 PM     By:   nxbusby491   (Member) Well, like I said, I'm all for people getting what they deserve. Piracy is a problem. Plain and simple. Will people die without Youtube, Facebook, etc? No. People got along just fine before without all those things, but theres got to be better ways to get rid of piracy. And taking away the freedom of speech isn't one of them. Nor would be, taking away all those jobs at all those companies that would die because of it. Supporters of this lame bill arn't even considering all the millions of jobs that would go away. Tech/internet is a major source of jobs in America and the world. To carelessly throw those away to satisfy Hollywood is insane. Hollywood has got to be stood up to like the high school bully it is, and stop being catered to like its gods gift to humanity. And this is NOT political. Hollywood should not decide the fate of the internet. And yes, I realize its not just Hollywood that this is about, but its certainly the biggest cry baby.     Non-Film Score Discussion: Today is the Big Blackout!    < 1 2 3  > >>  Go to page:  1 2 3   First Post    General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2 3

© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved. Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.