 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2012 04:44 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/19/2012 8:56 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> All US
>> financial institutions are barred from interacting with it (most
>> specifically payment processing and advertising services).
>
> This part I didn't know, and is even more fucked up.
Yeah, the idea is that if some illegal site operates off-shore, you
can't sue them, but you can still financially strangle them into
shutting down. I mean, assuming they make any significant money from the
US market in the first place...
> Second, as
> long as some DNS, some place, provides the IP data to get to a site, all
> you need to do is have your machine look at *that* DNS site for the
> data, instead of the closest one.
I don't care whether you delete the DNS record or block that IP address.
Sophisticated pirates can trivially circumvent such restrictions. If a
"web site" is hosting illegal stuff, you might plausibly be able to
block access to it. (Until somebody connects to a proxy outside America
- oops!) But if illegal stuff is on a peer to peer network, and all you
need is the IP address of any peer in the network in order to access all
the stuff... So, what, you're going to blacklist every peer in the
swarm? Good luck with that.
This isn't going to stop technical experts from pirating stuff. It /is/
going to stop the average, non-technical American from looking at stuff
that industry and government don't want them to look at. All that
scientific evidence about global warming... wouldn't it be convenient if
all that just quietly "disappeared"? Wouldn't that be nice?
> The level of complete stupidity in
> the bill is astounding, even if you ignore the fact that the morons in
> Congress and the Senate that originally backed it, where claiming,
> probably due to not knowing any better, that it was, "bringing online
> law into parity with the regular laws"
I do not know much about how US law works. (Hell, I don't know much
about how UK law works!) But I do wonder if the people behind this
*actually* believe it will work, or whether they know damned will this
will have no effect on piracy, and that's just a smokescreen in the
first place... Perhaps I have become too cynical?
> Last I checked, the non-online laws requires the people, once they find
> out about it, to a) inform the cops, and/or b) kick the bastards out of
> their building, not serve jail time for having accidentally allowed them
> on their property, or, even stupider, allowing them to post the address
> of their illegal business on the public advertisement board, in the
> hallway. Parity my ass...
Yeah, well, to some extent it comes from people's frustration that
foreign servers are helping piracy, and Americans can't sue them out of
existence. If you can't shut them down, censor them. There aren't too
many equivalents of that in the physical world.
> And its only funnier that one of the idiots supporting this thing was
> found to have illegally used a copyrighted image on his own government
> web page over the last 24 hours.
I can't comment on that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:14:37 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> If they were planning to make it legal to lock Americans up without
>>> trial, *that* would be seriously disturbing.
>>
>> They already have that.
>
> OK. In that case, if I had the misfortune to live in America, I'd be
> *way* more worried about that...
Indeed, there has been some noise about that addition to the
appropriations bill.
>>> Censoring the Internet is merely worrying
>>
>> Maybe for you. We have this thing here in the US called "free speech"
>
> More like "had", by the looks of things...
What do you base that statement on? SOPA and PIPA are not actually laws
that are being enforced - they are just bills that are currently dead.
>> The point of the protest yesterday was to raise awareness and get these
>> bills shelved.
>>
>> And it was successful.
>
> I'm not so sure about that... While I grant that many more people have
> now heard about this (e.g., me), I'm not hearing anything about that
> stopping this stuff actually becoming law. And even if these bills never
> become law, surely the lobbyists will just keep bills like this coming
> year after year until one of them /does/ make it into law...
The BBC had a story about it on their website.
And sure, RIAA and MPAA are not done yet. They're currently engaged in a
smear campaign against companies like Google who pushed on this.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> Maybe for you. We have this thing here in the US called "free speech"
> which means that the government cannot pass laws that restrict speech
> here. But SOPA/PIPA and similar laws (DMCA, anyone?) allow content to be
> removed from the Internet (or would allow, in the case of laws not passed
> yet) merely on the word of someone claiming copyright. The burden of
> proof is on the alleged infringer, not on the alleged copyright holder.
In principle if a company sends a DMCA takedown notice eg. to YouTube,
if the alleged infringer makes a counter-claim then YouTube is obliged
to restore the material without question. It is then up to the copyright
holder to pursue the situation further via legal means. (YouTube cannot
start judging if something is or isn't copyright infringement because
else they'll lose their "safe harbor" status that protects them from
being sued for distributing copyrighted material.)
One of the main drawbacks with this system is that it's a breach of
confidentiality rights. That's because if you want to issue a counter-claim,
you have to include your full personal details (name, address...) for the
claimant to see. This could, in principle, be misused by nefarious parties.
(And in fact, it has been misused. There are concrete examples.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:16:21 -0500, Warp wrote:
> In principle if a company sends a DMCA takedown notice eg. to YouTube,
> if the alleged infringer makes a counter-claim then YouTube is obliged
> to restore the material without question.
That's not consistent with what I've heard - the alleged infringer can
take legal action, but many users of YouTube are individuals who don't
have the resources to go up against a big media company's lawyers.
Of course, I may not have heard the way it actually works, too.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:16:21 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > In principle if a company sends a DMCA takedown notice eg. to YouTube,
> > if the alleged infringer makes a counter-claim then YouTube is obliged
> > to restore the material without question.
> That's not consistent with what I've heard - the alleged infringer can
> take legal action, but many users of YouTube are individuals who don't
> have the resources to go up against a big media company's lawyers.
No, the counter-claim can be made by the alleged infringer online (YouTube
even offers you directly instructions on how to do so) and YouTube has to
automatically restore the video, no questions asked.
Of course the copyright holder can then pursue it further if it wants,
but the role of YouTube ends there. (Naturally if you made a spurious
counter-claim and the copyright holder pursues, I'm assuming you'll get
a harsher sentence if found guilty.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:21:48 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:16:21 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> > In principle if a company sends a DMCA takedown notice eg. to
>> > YouTube,
>> > if the alleged infringer makes a counter-claim then YouTube is
>> > obliged to restore the material without question.
>
>> That's not consistent with what I've heard - the alleged infringer can
>> take legal action, but many users of YouTube are individuals who don't
>> have the resources to go up against a big media company's lawyers.
>
> No, the counter-claim can be made by the alleged infringer online
> (YouTube
> even offers you directly instructions on how to do so) and YouTube has
> to automatically restore the video, no questions asked.
That's interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Thakns.
> Of course the copyright holder can then pursue it further if it wants,
> but the role of YouTube ends there. (Naturally if you made a spurious
> counter-claim and the copyright holder pursues, I'm assuming you'll get
> a harsher sentence if found guilty.)
Perhaps, though I suppose if the rights are actually in question, then
you probably wouldn't get a harsher sentence. It would make a difference
if you made a counter-claim in the hopes the rights-holder wouldn't
bother pursuing it vs. there being an actual question of ownership.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > No, the counter-claim can be made by the alleged infringer online
> > (YouTube
> > even offers you directly instructions on how to do so) and YouTube has
> > to automatically restore the video, no questions asked.
> That's interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Thakns.
There have been actual cases, though, where YouTube *has* seemingly
taken the role of a judge and determined *not* to restore some videos
even after several counter-claims. In at least one example when the
alleged infringer threatened to pursue legal against YouTube (well,
Google) because they were breaching their own "safe harbor" status by
taking an active stance, YouTube finally silently agreed to restore the
videos in question.
The moral of the story is that if you are certain that you have not
infringed any copyright and some bully is shutting your video down by
making spurious DMCA claims, don't give up even if YouTube refuses to
restore the video at first. They just have to.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:24:42 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > No, the counter-claim can be made by the alleged infringer online
>> > (YouTube
>> > even offers you directly instructions on how to do so) and YouTube
>> > has to automatically restore the video, no questions asked.
>
>> That's interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Thakns.
>
> There have been actual cases, though, where YouTube *has* seemingly
> taken the role of a judge and determined *not* to restore some videos
> even after several counter-claims. In at least one example when the
> alleged infringer threatened to pursue legal against YouTube (well,
> Google) because they were breaching their own "safe harbor" status by
> taking an active stance, YouTube finally silently agreed to restore the
> videos in question.
>
> The moral of the story is that if you are certain that you have not
> infringed any copyright and some bully is shutting your video down by
> making spurious DMCA claims, don't give up even if YouTube refuses to
> restore the video at first. They just have to.
I think they count on individuals not being willing to pay court costs to
get a single video reinstated.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/20/2012 10:00 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:14:37 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>>>> If they were planning to make it legal to lock Americans up without
>>>> trial, *that* would be seriously disturbing.
>>>
>>> They already have that.
>>
>> OK. In that case, if I had the misfortune to live in America, I'd be
>> *way* more worried about that...
>
> Indeed, there has been some noise about that addition to the
> appropriations bill.
>
>>>> Censoring the Internet is merely worrying
>>>
>>> Maybe for you. We have this thing here in the US called "free speech"
>>
>> More like "had", by the looks of things...
>
> What do you base that statement on? SOPA and PIPA are not actually laws
> that are being enforced - they are just bills that are currently dead.
>
Or, so we think. Seems the Fed already "used" part of this law, even
before it was officially presented *as* one:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/17444/p2p_dns_to_take_on_icann_after_us_domain_seizures
The interesting result is that someone else already thought of the
easiest bloody stupid way to pretty much hose there whole law. P2P DNS.
There goes my multimillion dollar idea... lol
Seriously though, the biggest thing is the, "deny you the ability to
even pay your bills, by cutting off the ability to transact in the US.",
part of the damn thing. And you know damn well that is going on too, for
legitimate crimes. What makes the bills bloody stupid isn't any of that,
its the fact that you don't have to have any damn evidence, other than
basically an anonymous tip, to do any of it, as they are written. Right
now, the Fed at least has to have *some* cause to do it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/20/2012 3:45 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I do not know much about how US law works. (Hell, I don't know much
> about how UK law works!) But I do wonder if the people behind this
> *actually* believe it will work, or whether they know damned will this
> will have no effect on piracy, and that's just a smokescreen in the
> first place... Perhaps I have become too cynical?
>
All I can say is, see my other last post. They have already "used" this
tactic of killing ICANN DNS data, to close sites. It a) failed, since
they where back up less than 24 hours later, under a new name, and b)
didn't matter in terms of the "US funds" clause they tried to put in
these things, since they where not in the US, and therefor either didn't
need that, or where providing the content free, so where not selling to
anyone in the US in the first place, where a transaction might happen.
The super dumb comes from the presumption that they shouldn't have to
have just cause, or evidence, or a court order, or anything else,
presumably, other than some moron's "anonymous tip".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
