Me too. I think that the intent here is good, but Pandora's Box will be opened very wide with this one.Sandytimeman said:
New Law Would Force Search Engines to Block "Infringing" Sites
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
The way the bill is phrased, it seems that websites like The Escapist could even be blocked if even a SINGLE company or copyright owner decided it didn't like the Escapist using it's content or info on this site.
This.Sion_Barzahd said:
It seems to me like this is just another attempt at the government getting control of the internet with the guise of stopping piracy.
I mean, what's to say that someone didn't like a website, and got the "Copyright infringement" thing slapped on it, crippling it even if they didn't do anything. What's worse is that repealing this blackout on a site would resort to the extremely vague copyright infringement, and thus legal battles, in which whomever can buy the best lawyer wins.
Why does Homeland Security keep getting dragged into copyright battles?
My understanding was HS was founded to fight terrorism, minimize threat, and protect critical infrastructure, which may include internet related assets.
But unless I missed something big lately, IP copyright infringement isn't exactly terrorism.
My understanding was HS was founded to fight terrorism, minimize threat, and protect critical infrastructure, which may include internet related assets.
But unless I missed something big lately, IP copyright infringement isn't exactly terrorism.
Agreed, but it seems that instead of going after the internet, this legislation would try to target the companies that keep the money circulating, and unfortunately they often are at least partially based in the US. I love my country, but I often hate the thugs that govern it.RT-Medic-with-shotgun said:
This seems nice on the packaging, but feels oh so sinister. Good things are not coming from this. Immahope it fails.
This post is made of win. Gah, where are kid's shows like KND nowadays?HankMan said:
On-topic, I see absolutely, positively no way that this bill could possibly be abused [/sarcasm]. Like copyright flagging on Youtube, but government-controlled! Joy.
Hurray for internet censorship! Oh wait.. thats a bad thing. Pirate sites and Anonymous are just excuses for cracking down on free speech.
All I hope is that companies realize that this is US law, not an international law. If they try start forcing this on EU companies there is hell to pay. GO sensorship!
Piracy is a response to an untapped market.
It pains me to see such a poor response to this.
There is money to be made in the "problem" and censorship/prohibition is not the way to make the money.
This will end up like the criminalization of drugs. You convince people it is evil and before long they'll be cool with you doing any terrible thing to people who do it.
Just like drugs I don't do it, but the reaction to it is totally wrong.
Edit: Note I don't not do them because I feel they are wrong or evil, just don't have the patience or interest in either.
Godwin's law is cute because it contextualized an obvious observation made by anyone who has ever called a small square mustache a "Hitler Stache". The world thinks about him, on some level or another, constantly.
I don't think even Jesus has a hairstyle named after him.
It pains me to see such a poor response to this.
There is money to be made in the "problem" and censorship/prohibition is not the way to make the money.
This will end up like the criminalization of drugs. You convince people it is evil and before long they'll be cool with you doing any terrible thing to people who do it.
Just like drugs I don't do it, but the reaction to it is totally wrong.
Edit: Note I don't not do them because I feel they are wrong or evil, just don't have the patience or interest in either.
Human's love diabolical things, death, destruction, all that. It fascinates them because it connects them immediately with the ultimate uncertainty.Canid117 said:
Godwin's law is cute because it contextualized an obvious observation made by anyone who has ever called a small square mustache a "Hitler Stache". The world thinks about him, on some level or another, constantly.
I don't think even Jesus has a hairstyle named after him.
It will absolutely affect regular service. (It won't effect regular service either, but that's a different grammatical nuance altogether.)bahumat42 said:
1. Sites that get used for pirated goods also have legitimate uses!
Sites like YouTube, MegaUpload, RapidShare, and any torrent site you could name. They're used (in varying degrees) to move pirated stuff around, but that's not their primary or inherent purpose. Each of them has legal purposes too.
Medium vs. Content again. If this turns out like the "no new tech regarding DVD copyright-protection" laws, then we're gonna lose legitimate things, just as we've lost some ability to use DVD footage for fair use such as parody or criticism.
2. Think they'll limit this to actual cases of piracy?
A couple months ago my dad called my attention to a case of some political group getting their opposition's Facebook group banned. I'm hazy on the details (was it even Facebook?), but the gist was that Group A filed baseless complaints against Group B just to get them "off the air" as it were.
And since it's easier to kowtow first and research later (if at all), the site (Facebook or whatever) just dumped the "offending" group. A rotten yet effective strategy on the part of Group A.
It's the same stuff that got The Nostalgia Critic banned from YouTube a couple times... same with Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged. Both legitimate uses of footage. Both given the knee-jerk reaction to a fraudulent complaint.
And this ain't gonna slow the pirates much neither.
So Bookface could block Google? Or Google block any other search engine?
I can't see anyway this could be abused...Especially if that site is taken down and then rebuilt, still blocked.
I can't see anyway this could be abused...Especially if that site is taken down and then rebuilt, still blocked.