AD'ers: your internet under supervision

I thought so, it will technically become a felony to make animated gifs or post them without consent of the owners.

Technically Alldeaf will be low on the radar scale because it's not like we intentionally "pirate" these images, we use them and distribute it.
But there are sites out there that will be totally bombed by this (tinypic, photobucket, blogspot etc) and these will be on the high list for the infringement radar.

If those companies are bored and have nothing else to do they can come after all the little guys like forums, bloggers, diary journal writers who use copyrighted pics/images on their sites.
 
Over here we have internet sensorship that will be introduced soon, the government is running trials of the software now
 
naisho said:
If those companies are bored and have nothing else to do they can come after all the little guys like forums, bloggers, diary journal writers who use copyrighted pics/images on their sites.
Click to expand...

I can think of some bloggers who would get burned over that.
 
If you care about this please protest. Call or e-mail your congressional representative -- you can get the contact info here:

Find Your Elected Officials - Common Cause

It's probably not to soon to call or e-mail your senators also since this bill is apparently on a fast track. Contact info is available at the above web site also.

Don't be concerned about being eloquent -- just tell your representatives and senators that you are strongly against the Internet Blacklist Bills (PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House). It can be difficult to win against powerful corporations, but if enough people call or e-mail -- it will make a difference.

There is an on-line petition also:
American Censorship Day November 16 - Join the fight to stop SOPA

(Thanks to Evo Dragon in the other thread in the Computer forum for linking to it first.)

ETA: I just posted this info to my facebook page. I don't have many FB friends -- but every little bit counts! If this is not being covered well in MM, its up to each of us to do what we can to get the information out.
 
Ausrider said:
Over here we have internet sensorship that will be introduced soon, the government is running trials of the software now
Click to expand...

Did the laws already pass? How did Australians respond? What specifically is being censored?
 
naisho said:
Apple, Microsoft, and the 27 Other Tech Giants Who Support the Awful Internet Censorship Bill

Tech Companies that are supporting this bill thru Business Software Alliance (BSA)

Code: 
Adobe
Apple
Autodesk
AVEVA
AVG
Bentley Systems
CA
Cadence Design Systems
CNC Software – Mastercam
Compuware
Corel
Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation
Dell
Intel
Intuit
Kaspersky
McAfee
Microsoft
Minitab
Progress Software
PTC
Quark
Quest
Rosetta Stone
Siemens PLM Software, Inc.
Sybase
Symantec
TechSmith
The MathWorks
Click to expand...

I see Siemens is on that list. All of us should ban Siemen's hearing aids! Seriously I'm keeping the list of names and will adjust my future purchases accordingly. Well, as much as possible anyway. I may not always be able to boycott Microsoft.
 
naisho said:
I thought so, it will technically become a felony to make animated gifs or post them without consent of the owners.

Technically Alldeaf will be low on the radar scale because it's not like we intentionally "pirate" these images, we use them and distribute it.
But there are sites out there that will be totally bombed by this (tinypic, photobucket, blogspot etc) and these will be on the high list for the infringement radar.

If those companies are bored and have nothing else to do they can come after all the little guys like forums, bloggers, diary journal writers who use copyrighted pics/images on their sites.
Click to expand...

Curious ... using me as an example ... I either 1) post gifs that come from other sites -- I am not taking credit for them, am I? If you were to look at the image URL you can see where it originally came from. Would that be prohibited? (versus me saving it to my site and posting it from my site -- I can see how that would be prohibited), and 2) I often make my own images -- whether I draw them or use my own photographs, etc., it's no felony to me to post my own stuff, right? (I do believe I understand you correctly, I was basing this question off of "technically become a felony to make animated gifs or post them without consent of the owners." so as long as I am the owner of my own artwork, it's ok, right?
 
AlleyCat said:
Curious ... using me as an example ... I either 1) post gifs that come from other sites -- I am not taking credit for them, am I? If you were to look at the image URL you can see where it originally came from. Would that be prohibited? (versus me saving it to my site and posting it from my site -- I can see how that would be prohibited), and 2) I often make my own images -- whether I draw them or use my own photographs, etc., it's no felony to me to post my own stuff, right? (I do believe I understand you correctly, I was basing this question off of "technically become a felony to make animated gifs or post them without consent of the owners." so as long as I am the owner of my own artwork, it's ok, right?
Click to expand...

The problem is its unclear what is going to happen. Most likely the source web site will get "banned" for time. Possibly any web site that posts links could be "banned" as well. By banned I mean penalized or blocked or both.
 
Please don't give up so quickly! The bill hasn't passed yet and it will make a difference if many of us protest.
 
When is this bill coming up for a vote? I did not see that info.
 
If this happens, it is going to drive information into the Deep Web, unsearchable by search engines, and really hard to find unless someone gives you the link.

This HAS to be stopped.
 
yep @ AlleyCat/Cheetah

2) if you make your own gifs from your own material out of your own creation, you can do whatever you want with it. If you find someone on NoDeaf.com is using your material and you have copyrighted it, you have laws to ask that person or ask NoDeaf.com to take it down. It doesn't matter if he is using your link or if he uploaded it on tinypic, the copyright still belongs to you. (Not sure how this is involved in detail, this is just how I understand it)

1) If this bill passed, say you posted a pic/gif you found of Garfield doing something wacky from the Garfield movie (2004) in the gif thread here. Or you are savvy enough to make your own gif/image out of the movie. Technically, you are committing a felony by how the bill is written but it is likely whoever is policing this isn't going to dedicate the time to go this low.

What they'll likely do is target those sites that people are uploading the garfield pic to. Like photobucket. They'll say "Hey, take this stuff down, it's copyrighted infringement". PB will have to comply, or else they get on the poop-list.

If the AD'er uploads the Garfield gif here on alldeaf, Alex/mods would have to remove it immediately since AD is hosting material that isn't supposed to be distributed.
 
Laws already exist to do just this. The real question is... do we need yet another law? Wouldn't this new law be so far reaching that say, paramount pictures can shut down youtube just by filing one complaint with no judicial review?
 
Cheetah said:
Laws already exist to do just this. The real question is... do we need yet another law? Wouldn't this new law be so far reaching that say, paramount pictures can shut down youtube just by filing one complaint with no judicial review?
Click to expand...

That's the idea.
 
Whoa, reading the Wiki on this sounds like you could lose your ISP if they do not block your access to copyrighted material. It may be your neighbor that is streaming the Harry Potter movies from another neighbor. That's going to get ugly fast.
 
It makes it way too easy for false complaints to shut down websites. This is a war against information. Prior to the Internet really breaking out, the media was the sole source of information. Now the people write and publish their own information. Other sides to the story gets out.

News articles that are published, then deleted, can be republished on other websites in perpetuity. Things don't stay hidden for long.

Until this bill passes.

This is a struggle for access to unfettered information. This is a struggle for who gets to spoon-feed you information and what kind of information, and using what kind of filters.

This bill is a foot in the door to get the genie that is the Internet, back in the bottle.

Don't let them do it.
 
Cheetah said:
Whoa, reading the Wiki on this sounds like you could lose your ISP if they do not block your access to copyrighted material. It may be your neighbor that is streaming the Harry Potter movies from another neighbor. That's going to get ugly fast.
Click to expand...

That's one of the many potential issues, a lot of people don't know how to secure their wireless routers. So a lot of people are able to leech off the internet service. Also, it's kind of difficult to pinpoint a crime onto someone when they are living in a house with others. For instance, family members, roommates, boarders, tenants, etc.
 
Jazzberry said:
Please don't give up so quickly! The bill hasn't passed yet and it will make a difference if many of us protest.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing the contact resources, Jazzberry.

This should be a good resource to share with that, too - Mozilla's page:
Help Mozilla stop Internet Censorship Legislation - mozilla.org/sopa

RE the Siemens, I agree with you totally, however we should be careful as to make sure if Siemens PLM is a subsidiary or they are representing Siemens as a whole. I don't know much about Siemens PLM so will look that up.
 
there's going to be very controversial, in term of "Public access", "Freedom of Information Act" and such. What I believe is that if you set this "items" as private, copyrights, and if it been breached, then Gov have the right to take actions. If you set this "items" as public, anyone can duplicate and put it in another location. So, the owner has to decide if you want to set items to public or private. It's all up to the owner. The biggest concern is invasion of privacy in this entire wide world of networks. The Gov can keep track of where this item originated... like for example, hacker hacked famous female star's smartphone that contain nude photo and been placed in his or someone's website.... what Gov will do? You know?
 
Back
Top