SOPA

[3RA1N1AC]

Must not have been written on my tickets. And that is not applicable to SOPA, unless I were to claim that the people in the photos were me or my employees, and set up a website on a remote island outside of the US while profiting on it.

oh i never claimed it was applicable to sopa, but there is a fine line once we start this kind of legislation. denny is profiting from this site, your illegal pictures add to that

and why can you post pictures of a game, but someone else shouldnt stream video? isnt video just a collection of sequential pictures?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

there already is legislation for this in the form of a DMCA Takedown notice.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

good, i cant stand the internet

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

yeah, i guess you can pay to watch a movie then.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

oh give me a break, did someone copy your homework in high school?

and where can i find these free movies you speak of

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

oh give me a break, did someone copy your homework in high school?

and where can i find these free movies you speak of

Try out Amazon Instant Video, its great!

 

[3RA1N1AC]

never heard of it, i stream netflix through my wii though, and occasionally download $5000 computer software to resell overseas

 

[speeds]

Sounds like SOPA and PIPA are both losing support and could get vetoed anyway.

In other news...

 

[3RA1N1AC]

yeah, this shit is beyond dumb

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I have no problem protecting copyright and stopping piracy of people's works.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

well you should probably credit the artists of your avatar and signature then for starters

 

[Denny Crane]

I would think the #1 website for abetting copyright infringement is Google search. Are they going to shut that down? Will I be allowed to sue Google if a painting I copyright appears in their Image search?

Or is it the fact that Google isn't "dedicated" to copyright infringement? If you want to argue that, then you have to prove also that that applications like Frostwire are "dedicated" to copyright infringement, when in fact they are not. They are sometimes used for completely legal file sharing. Guns don't kill people--people kill people. Web searches don't steal--people steal.

Is it some sort of magic ratio? If 50%+ of your site usage is used for copyright infringement, does it make the site illegal and liable? If so, how do you measure it? Does Google have to provide usage statistics to every court that they get sued under? Would Google really do that, or would they just say "fuck it" and drastically limit their search results?

And what happens when the illegal sites just throw up a site based in some country that doesn't give a fuck about US law?

I just don't see how you can enforce this. Every solution just creates more hassles for legal companies, while the shady sites will just innovate new ways to circumvent the law.

There is the concept of common carrier status in the law. The phone company is a common carrier, for example. If two people use the phone to arrange a drug deal (illegal act), the phone company is not a party to the deal, or accomplice.

In terms of content search, it seems that Google is reasonably a common carrier. The image search is a bit of a gray area.

Google would lose its common carrier status if it moderated the results. If a human was looking at the links and saw copyright violation, they'd be required to remove the link.

They do moderate, sorta, with their paid links. And I think they reasonably try to assure those links are free of copyright infringement.