Badmovies.org Forum

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/247339/lawmakers_seem_intent_on_approving_sopa_pipa.html

This could very well mean the end of this forum as well. Damn this thing is scary.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/TKTklF0JJdI/AAAAAAAAI64/FBehpJqYCv4/s1600/FacePalm.jpg)

 :lookingup:

"Ferguson and other Web security experts have questioned provisions in both bills that would allow court orders forcing Internet service providers to block subscriber access to foreign websites accused of copyright infringement and domain name registrars to stop resolving queries that direct traffic to those sites...  The bills would also allow the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders to seek court orders blocking payment processors and online advertising networks from doing business with foreign sites accused of infringing copyright."

How would this end this forum?  This forum isn't dedicated to copyright infringement.  People panic at absolutely anything.  I run a website and I'm not scared in the slightest. 

Sorry if it sounds like I was mad at you personally, Bob, that wasn't my intent.  This is just a pet peeve of mine: people panicking every time Congress contemplates some piece of legislation, predicting that it will cause the end of society/civil liberties/chicken dinners on Sunday. 

The bill may not be perfect, but the fact is all the provisions are very clearly aimed at blocking/limiting access to sites operating outside the US which are dedicated to providing pirated software/music/movies.

Given that my chicken dinners are always on Saturday, I too am not concerned.

 :wink:

It won't stop us posting here, because who cares what we talk about?

Question is, why is the entire issue of internet access dedicated to movie studios who are afraid people might be watching their product for free? Who are they and why should we care? The broad expanse of communication that the internet is is more than some goober watching "She's All That."

The proponents of SOPA are arguing, whether they know it or not, that the possibility of a pimply-faced teenager watching the latest movie for free is more important than every single thing the internet is capable of.

That's stupid, and the legal precedents they are willing to enforce to make sure that doesn't happen boggle the mind.

You should care simply because the people who are pirating movies are doing an injustice to the people who work hard to make them, hurting the economy, and (until I'm convinced otherwise) efforts to stop them have no effect on your legitimate rights.  I defend copyright and intellectual property because it is the cornerstone for creative people to be able to make a living in the free market doing what they love.   

I presume you're not at all concerned when access is blocked to a child pornography site.  Efforts to stop child pornography haven't brought the Internet to its knees.  Several EU countries already block sites dedicated to copyright infringement (i.e., Pirate Bay).

What specific proposal boggles your mind? I see a few minor problems with the bill but nothing that couldn't be fixed.  The majority of arguments I've seen against it are slippery-slope arguments, and I never take those very seriously.

So the guy Who Authored SOPA Was A Copyright Violator

http://www.businessinsider.com/lamar-smith-copyright-violator-2012-1

So, what you're saying is that the author of the anti-piracy legislation knows what he's talking about?

This is ridiculous.  :thumbdown:

I just thought it was extremely ironic and would contribute to this discussion

I was just clowning around.

Does the bill include any provisions for sopapillas, though?
That's what I really need to know.

I was considering a joke along those lines. I thought the audience would be too small.

I ate a sopapilla last night and it's likely to pass soon.

sopapilla   :question:

A delicious Mexican food treat.

Well...there is one justification for pirating copyrighted material, and that's if you don't have a way to legally access it. For example, Valve, a video game developer, was warned against making their services more available in Russia since "they're just going to pirate it anyway." Lo and behold, when the service and products became available for purchase in Russia, far fewer Russians were pirating Valve products. People will keep downloading, streaming and overall just pirating no matter what, it's true, but fewer people will do it if they have legal access to the thing they're interested in.

@Gravekeeper, that is by no means a defendable "justification."   :lookingup:

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's certainly not "I just don't want to pay for this product." It's saying "I'm interested in this, but this is quite literally the only way I can enjoy since it's either not available for purchase in my neck of the woods/country or is no longer available for purchase at all."

There is certainly an ethical gray areas with OOP/abandoned copyright stuff, but they don't relate to SOPA.  Why would someone file a SOPA claim to stop someone from giving away something free, unless they were selling it?  Anyone who stuck to pirating that kind of grey-area stuff would remain just as safe as all the bootlegger DVD-R sites are today.  Their protection lies in the fact that no one has an economic interest in spending the time and effort to take them down.

It would appear that many of the fears associated with SOPA are the same fears that accompany the security bill in Washington (the military detainment one I can't remember the nomenclature of): Big Brother Fear. I'm not trying to dismiss or trivialize that fear, I have it too. However, that fear also carries with it an automatic knee-jerk reaction to anything that grants increasing policing powers to the central government. In an increasingly global world where state or regional jurisdiction simply cannot handle certain concerns, we are going to continue to see more of it. I'm not saying I like it, as I am a big supporter of states' rights. Rev's input is invariably level-headed and measured when it comes to these kinds of debates, and let's face it, he understands the law better than most of us. I don't think he dismisses the concerns as trivial either, I just think he doesn't see the concern that the "black helicopter" crowd does.

It happens.  I know someone who was at one point selling at cost CD-R copies of the Radioactive Dreams soundtrack on eBay, and got notice filed against him.  Funny though, it's now easily available on a variety of sites for free (youtube included) - maybe the issue was that people were paying for it?

The biggest issue with stuff like SOPA is it just makes it too easy for them to shut down grey area stuff, or accidental infringers.  It can have negative effects because of that, where companies use it in an attempt to protect their assets in ways beyond protecting themselves from pirates.  Further damaging of Fair Use, of course, being the obvious one.  And Fair Use has been narrowed down more than it should have been already. 

It didn't pass.

The House version was killed (at least temporarily).  A similar Senate bill is still alive.  I don't know what the differences are.

What do you mean by that?  I'm not aware of any recent changes to the law.  Fair Use decisions are made by courts on a case-by-case basis using a four factor test (and different federal circuits have slightly different precedents in terms of interpretation).  That means that decisions can end up being all over the map, but I'm not aware of any systematic narrowing.

An interesting development. I just went to Wikipedia, which is blacked out at the time of this posting, and was met with the following message:

Imagine a World
Without Free Knowledge

For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more.

Clicking on the "learn more" link talks about SOPA and PIPA, the latter being the Senate bill that is apparently still alive. I still don't know enough about either to make an intelligent comment, but it seems clear enough that Wikipedia is concerned.

Hmm. theoatmeal.com is doing the same thing. I wonder how widespread the blackouts are.

Not that I have a lot of traffic but I also blacked out my two film review sites (Wordpress gave the option).

I found a complete list of websites having a blockout yesterday...can't find it now

only ones I remember that haven't been listed are Word Press that TGWTG.com

This video explains perfectly why this is completely horrible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzqMoOk9NWc&feature=g-u&context=G292e6e4FUAAAAAAAAAA

If this does ultimately pass and is as harmful to the net as it seems, I say screw 'em. Start supporting 100% user-created content (there really is some great stuff online) and stop going to the theatre. If they don't want there to be a free and open discourse, as well as to make life much more difficult for anyone who wants to break into any sort of creative business (stuff like YouTube and tumblr is great for this since your work is up there and potentially millions of people are looking at it and telling all their friends and followers), then I for one don't want to give them my money.

Well, I think a world without wikipedia would be an improvement....a rather large improvement.  They might think they've amassed the largest encyclopedia in human history...but it's mostly crap, so so what?  Arrogant.

Okay, let's say the US Congress did pass this law.  Would that stop wiipedia from being hosted in Liberia or Surinam?

The US does not regulate the Internet...they can only regulate the sites that are hosted (and maybe seen?) in the US.

Get real, wikipedia...

(Sorry, I guess that's really OT)

Go to Google which has a symbolic "blackout" today. 

You guess...?  Wikipedia has its shortcomings, however, those are more expressly about their contributors than the site's intent.  I won't disagree with arrogant, but... yeh.  You're over the top. 

Well, I wouldn't support the bill that guy's talking about.  However, I don't think his reading of the bill is logical, and he glosses over some important points.

First off, that text he's commenting on is obsolete---SOPA is dead, and we're now dealing with PIPA.  Here's a readable text of PIPA: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/text.  If you follow the link I think you'll find that the definition in section 2 (7) removes some of the ambiguous language that was causing him an issue with the definition of a "site dedicated to the theft of US property."

Second, at about 3:20 he talks about the bill as if it created a presumption of guilt.  He neglected to mention that to get the ball rolling on this a plaintiff would have to go to a judge and get a preliminary injunction after a hearing in which both sides would be allowed to present arguments.  That's no different than the procedure in any other civil action. (This is civil law, not criminal law). 

Third, his reading of the text is not very thorough.  He focuses on the last five words---"engages in, enables, or facilitates"---out of context with the remainder of the phrase.  He then argues that a site like YouTube could be construed to unwittingly "enable or facilitate" copyright infringement and thus be taken down.  But the entire phrase reads "offering goods and services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates" a violation.  While YouTube might inadvertently enable or facilitate copyright infringement, it's a much tougher case to argue they are involved in "offering goods and services in a manner" that facilitates illegal activity.  The entire phrase implies intent, which is consistent with the other definitions which all imply a high degree of intent. 

However, the text is extremely poorly written and far too vague, and I'm very glad that it is no longer in there.  PIPA clarifies that the site must be used "primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating" copyright infringement, exempting the legitimate sites he's worried about getting accidentally caught in the act's net.

It seems obvious to me the Attorney General would never bring a case on his own to shut down YouTube, and I am surprised that anyone finds it plausible that a judge would sign an order to take down YouTube. There may be problems with the bill that no one has mentioned, but the "it'll take down YouTube!" bit strikes me as a red herring. 

Never, EVER, let logic and rational thought get in the way of a good knee-jerk response to something...

Rev, you should know better.   :twirl:

I've been very critical of the overreaction to SOPA because of my contrarian nature.  Whenever I see 99% of people lining up on one side I naturally want to take the other side.  That's where I'm needed.

However, I DO want to say that there was a lot of value in the public criticism of SOPA.  The text was badly written and I see how people would be concerned that it could be used in ways other than intended.  I think if the public causes legislators to rewrite the legislation to address fears, then it has been a very good thing.  The system is actually working.

True, with one caveat that tends to bug me in situations like this.

If the public is taking action because they've read and understood the legislation then I agree...a VERY good thing.

But, if they are reacting only to what they heard so-and-so say, and especially if so-and-so did NOT know what he/she was talking about at all, there's a problem.  The premise is a well informed electorate, after all.

This happened last year (or whenever it was) with Arizona Immigration Bill.  There as a WHOLE LOT said about the powers that that bill granted that simply were not there.  I'm not lawyer, but I used to be in Law Enforcement and had to apply laws, so I was trained by lawyers to apply such laws in practice in the field.

I'm not getting into whether that law was good or bad, right or wrong, blah blah blah...but what was said about it was simply made up tripe.  I even quoted the salient sections of the law and pointed out what it ACTUALLY SAID, and folks would still say, "yeah, but it COULD be used for x."

This SOPA/PIPA stuff is similar - not perhaps in detail but in the fact that many people commenting on it have neither read nor TRIED to actually understand it.  Like most bills, true enough.  But rather, folks are content to get that info from bloggers (who also have neither read nor tried to understand it)....

It only takes one 'industry insider' with a halfway decent following and at least made-up credibility to misinterpret one line in such a bill and the races are off...kneejerking all the way down the track.

As a side note, this is what made groklaw such an invaluable aid oh about a decade ago.  The SCO vs IBM thing was so big, and rather important in tech circles, yet everyone blathering about it did not understand what they were even talking about...until PJ essentially dedicated her life to providing GOOD information with well reasoned, well worded commentary for the non-lawyerish.

Here's what she has to say today on this topic:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120118113455360
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120119090455147

It's interesting that she references that Khan Academy video as "very helpful" that you criticized as being illogical and superficial (my words based on what you posted).  She posted that TODAY...after that bill was killed.

So, my question is...how are we lay folks supposed to determine which is the better analysis?  That's not a 'challenge;' it's an honest question.

Yeah, this is what "grinds my gears," so to speak.  The same thing happens in science, medicine and any technical field.  The primary source is difficult for a layman to understand.  So, an expert, usually with an agenda, summarizes it.  The most sensationalized summary gets picked up and passed around the blogosphere.  Then people start passionately arguing about it without ever checking the primary source.  People are too quick to put their faith in experts without doing the research themselves.



The Khan Academy video is, actually, pretty good, particularly as in introduction for laymen.  That's why I honored it by talking it as a serious challenge.  However like any advocate he did omit things that don't support his conclusion, which I felt a need to point out.  The person who posted the link doesn't go into detail about what she liked about it.  She obviously doesn't favor the legislation, which is fine.

The Khan Academy video pointed out a possible interpretation of the bill that I think is ultimately implausible.  However, what it does show is that the section they focus on is drafted terribly.  I had to read it over and over several times to figure out what it was trying to say.  It's one of those awful legalese run-on sentences with nested "or" clauses that create ambiguity.  That sentence was terrible and I do agree that the legislation shouldn't have been passed unless it was rewritten.  The language in PIPA is much clearer about the law being intended to apply only to piracy sites.

Ah, okay.  Cool.  Thanks for the clarification.  I think misinterpreted your post earlier.

On PJ:  When she first started groklaw, she pretty much ONLY posted analysis of the SCO decisions, ruling, arguments, etc.  It was very focused, and her posts were very "tight."  She's a paralegal, but got input from attorneys as well.  The focus made it outstanding.

Since the SCO v IBM settled down (and a few other less well known but related cases), I quit reading her site.  Today was the first time I've checked it in years, and was saddened to see that tight focus (one issue studied and presented very well) was gone.

I guess part of this is the whole "where do I get my news" debate on a smaller scale, but it's my issue with the "blogosphere" as well.  I just don't trust "bloggers" because there's absolutely NO vetting of any information.  And, it seems to have become one giant 'popularity' contest....pithy writers get popular and with that popularity, they get credibility.

If you had trouble with discernment on SOPA, I'm glad I did not try to read it.  My head hurts enough these days... :wink:

Thanks for the input on this thread, by the way.   :thumbup:

(http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l79/RCMerchant/tumblr_ly069xgttq1qzpwi0o1_250.gif)

The best part of that gif is where it says "look it up" and "educate yourself." 

That should mean reading the actual text of the bill, not a summary posted by a blogger who probably has no expertise and doesn't know what he's talking about.

I just don't understand how anyone could read the text of PIPA (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/text) and believe it could be used to shut down a domestic site hosting an animated gif.  The law wouldn't even apply to the makers of the gif, theoatmeal.com, since they are a domestically registered site and don't fall under the bill's purview [sec 3(a)(1)].  They would be covered by the DMCA like any other domestically registered site.  And how do they think that hosting gif could possibly turn their site into an "Internet site dedicated to infringing activities" as defined in Sec 2 (7)?

How can that gif claim Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [sec 3 (b)(1)] does not constitute "due process"?  Why dedicate so much text detailing all the steps to take necessary to serve process [sec 3(c)] if there's no due process?

And why am I arguing with a gif? 

Don't worry, the bill's not going to pass, thanks to public outrage.  I should let it go.  But as someone who's actually read the text, it gets to me that that public outrage isn't based on anything that's actually in the legislation. 

The reason I posted the gif is because I thought the animation was funny.
Personally-I'm not worried about SOPA.

That's why I didn't make a comment in this thread-but it was a funny cartoon-and this seemed like an appropriate place to post it.
I found it on TUMBLR-if your not famliar with it,it's basically an image sharing site.
I noticed that a lot of the folks over there are very paranoid about this SOPA thing.
Me-nah!

Hey RC- I don't blame you!  That's why I wrote

Because you CAN?

If that was actually on wikipedia, there would have been over a dozen people asking for sources for it and another half dozen saying that it's "original research" and isn't allowed.  ... and it would have had a banner uptop asking for more money.