Ramblings of an old Doc

 

 

Many of us know that Jafo adopts occasionally unpopular (with some) stands on IP (Intellectual Property). He insists on the highest of standards to protect artists and their efforts. He does this across the internet and at significant cost to his private life. Fewer, though, know that Island Dog becomes rabid on this topic as well until recently (“Join me in ripping a ripper”), and dedicates significant time to this as well. In this case alone, this same ripper has been back on deviantArt six or seven times (I lose count).

I should express my special thanks to $chix0r (a wonderful artist, btw, as well as dA Admin) at dA for helping every single time. Due notice should be paid to the right panel on her profile page.

So, this little news flash inspired me to express my respect for these two WC Community Members and leaders, and is dedicated to them as well as $chix0r at dA as my “thank you”.

The really great site arstechnica published on the new Bill introduced in the Senate by 11 Senators of very different leanings. This anti-piracy legislation would dramatically increase the government’s legal power to disrupt and shut down websites “dedicated to infringing activities.”

A major feature of the PROTECT IP Act would grant the government the authority to bring lawsuits against these websites, and obtain court orders requiring search engines like Google to stop displaying links to them.

“Both law enforcement and rights holders are currently limited in the remedies available to combat websites dedicated to offering infringing content and products,” said Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and the bill’s main sponsor.

“The proposal comes to help complete and repair the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act introduced last year (COICA) which was scrapped by its authors in exchange for the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in order to win Senate passage.” – arstechnica

This PIPA is less sweeping in the domains allowed to be seized, but now limits the DNS to American soil only, allowing the sites to continue to be seen outside the USA.

“Either way, though, the legislation amounts to the Holy Grail of intellectual-property enforcement that the recording industry, movie studios and their union and guild workforces have been clamoring for since the George W. Bush administration.” – arstechnica

“The measure does not narrowly define the websites that could be targeted. The bill still defines a site as ‘dedicated to infringing activities’ if it is designed or marketed as ‘enabling or facilitating’ actions that are found to be infringing. In other words, even if the site isn’t itself infringing copyright, if its actions ‘enable or facilitate’ someone else’s infringement, the government can tell ISPs to blacklist your site, and copyright holders can sue to cut your funding.” - Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director of Public Knowledge

So, Spencer and Paul… this one’s for you and all you do to protect WinCustomize and it’s members as well as Stardock from the rippers: “Thank you”, from the doc.

Sources:

1. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/senate-bill-gives-feds-power-to-order-piracy-site-blacklisting.ars  from David Kravitz, Wired.com


Comments (Page 10)
11 PagesFirst 8 9 10 11 
on May 20, 2011

Let's say we DON'T make it 'legal to steal cars'.

Let's leave it EXACTLY as it is.... ILLEGAL.

Let's put the onus instead on the thief to COMPLY with the law....and NOT on the victim to jump through hoops to regain custody of his car.

Do YOU get it yet?...

Ok, so if you are so happy with the effectiveness of the law against car theft, then I am going to assume your car does not have any locks, an alarm, and you keep all of your valuable in there for safety due to the amazing car theft laws? Oh wait, you don't so instead you are pushing to cut off the hands of anyone even attempting to steal a car right?

on May 21, 2011

kenata
so instead you are pushing to cut off the hands of anyone even attempting to steal a car right?

Merely 'attempting to steal' simply makes them incompetent as well as criminally minded.

Probably should pity them and bequeath them the car instead.

No need to 'cut off their hands'...just imprison them for being criminals....we're oh-so civilized after all.

 

The whole silly point you are hell-bent on ignoring or just plain not understanding is...

No, 'we' are NOT 'happy with the effectiveness of the law against...' which is why 'we' WANT to see something like this 'bill' adopted to IMPROVE the Law's effectiveness.

I think I may actually need to type more slowly so people can keep up...

on May 21, 2011

Let's be blunt.

My car has an alarm and locks for the simple reason there are fucks out there who DO NOT CARE about [my] property rights and take any and all opportunities to convert an 'asset' acquired into something to shoot into their veins.

The world is full of shits who have no consideration or respect for others.

Sadly those who DO tend to abide by the social mores and NOT kick the living crap out of the arseholes who so seriously deserve it.

Instead they hope to rely on the policing of law to MINIMIZE the hurt perpetrated by others.

 

Now come on....twist all that around to some-how legitimize warez use and piracy.... but remember while you champion free speech, free thought...free love and whatever such bullshit remember that paedophilia must also be PROTECTED under this idealism of "freedom".

Good luck with that.

on May 21, 2011

Now come on....twist all that around to some-how legitimize warez use and piracy.... but remember while you champion free speech, free thought...free love and whatever such bullshit remember that paedophilia must also be PROTECTED under this idealism of "freedom".

Wow, and you say that I am the one who is twisting the argument. What does freedom of thought have to do with freedom to have sexual relations with children?

on May 21, 2011

kenata
What does freedom of thought have to do with freedom to have sexual relations with children?

When freedom to do 'what you want' precludes warez distribution, file 'sharing' [of other person's property], redistribution of copyrighted work, grand theft, OR child abuse.

Try NOT to be deliberately obtuse.

 

Such 'extremes' as paedophilia demonstrate exactly how dangerous blanket freedom can be.

The absurdity that is 'freedom of speech at ALL cost' legitimizes the existence of the KKK, and they're such a noble, upright pillar of society.

on May 21, 2011

By the way....going back to the cars with alarms and locks, etc....

In an IDEAL world all people would respect all others' rights and there would be NO NEED to lock anything at all.

The world is NOT ideal.  It has people in it who believe the rules do NOT apply to them simply because they don't particularly care for those rules.

Paedophiles believe they do no wrong.

Warez pirates believe they do no wrong.

What makes the latter particularly annoying is they believe they are actually doing GOOD....

Neither creature has a place here, however.

on May 21, 2011

Warez pirates believe they do no wrong.

What makes the latter particularly annoying is they believe they are actually doing GOOD....

Neither creature has a place here, however.

You probably should rephrase here, as it is not that neither creature has a place, but that you do not agree that they should have a place. While I do agree that pedos should be locked away, I am less convinced about warez pirates. To go back to the OP, this legislation does absolutely nothing directly to warez pirates. It can only target potential havens for these people, while also giving an immense amount of power to the federal government. This does not stop warez directly, and like other actions to end illegal distribution will more than likely spurn new technologies to further escape any form of justice. You had previously called this piece of legislation a move towards updating law to handle new technologies, yet it does nothing to actually criminalize Warez pirates. So to return to our car analogy, this would be like letting thieves steal car stereos but bring down the hammer on pawn shops which buy and then sell the stereos.  The stereo thieves may be liable to the car owners in some kind of civil matter, but they could go on being stereo thieves.

on May 21, 2011

kenata
It can only target potential havens for these people, while also giving an immense amount of power to the federal government.

Go after them, where the congregate, those that host them (for profit, btw... so RICO hopefully applies, also), those that use their "services" as well. After all, as in the case with prostitution, the gov't. goes after the crime boss, the madam, the prostitute and the 'John'.

You won't get them all with the same law... but hey, use as many laws as you need. "When considering doing a good deed, one should not be deterred by the thought he might not be able to complete it or succeed."

on May 21, 2011

kenata
You probably should rephrase here, as it is not that neither creature has a place, but that you do not agree that they should have a place.

No, I mean I can actually decide the fate of EITHER 'creature' HERE.  That is the responsibility of Stardock's site administrators.

Both face instant removal.

The ONLY difference is the latter gets a ban....whereas the former would get the attention of the Federal Police as well as a ban.

So, no, there's no need to rephrase at all.

on May 21, 2011

Guess it's a moot point now anyway, John, after all, the rapture's tomorrow....

I'm speaking from the alien space ship the "ASP Rapture".  Since I was recently raptured, I can only surmise that, my argument was  flawless and completely correct.

So long earthlings!

muhauhuahuahua!

 

on May 23, 2011


Quoting Dr Guy, reply 123All laws infringe on our inalienable rights.

Oh, gosh yes.

The law prohibiting murder infringes on your inalienable right to kill...and damn it, what right do we have to prohibit our self-expressive youth from taking an AK47 to their classmates and enacting their own Columbine?

Gotta nurture these kiddies after all ....

You should have quoted the whole idea, and you are wrong.  We do not have the right to kill.  We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit (not attainment mind you) of happiness.  For some sick people, murder is happiness, so their rights have to be curtailed (they cannot pursue that happiness).

I thought I was clear that I was not an anarchist.  Recognizing what laws do is not damning them, but understanding their effects.  And that is why I do not like bad laws - regardless of the intent.

on May 23, 2011

U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake'

 OOps, we called all these mom and pop shops child didlers, Are we sorry? Hell no LOL

CP banner

I wonder how many people here would like to be call "Child Pornographers" by mistake?

on May 23, 2011

Dr Guy
We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit (not attainment mind you) of happiness.

The funny part here is actually the source of this idea. Thomas Jefferson was a heavy student of John Locke, the British political philosopher, yet made a fairly significant change to Locke's fundamental theory. In his work "Two Treatises on Government", Locke states that there are four inalienable human rights "Life, Health, Liberty, and Property". In general, the founding fathers of the United States did not agree that property was such a right.

on May 23, 2011

kenata
In general, the founding fathers of the United States did not agree that property was such a right.

The reason property wasn't mentioned by Jefferson (a slave owner) was the same reason that led to the Civil War:

"The law of the Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by any interior law which asserts that man is property."

Their thoughts centered around holding the 13 colonies together and forging a country, rather than solving that problem which indeed came up and was not dealt with.

on May 23, 2011

kenata
In general, the founding fathers of the United States did not agree that property was such a right.

I'm sure they had a bunch of beads in order to con the Indians out of THEIR property...

Might is right....they had guns, too.

11 PagesFirst 8 9 10 11