Re: The SOPA bill
Posted: November 26th, 2011, 1:11 am[quote="FlipMode"]
Not really. You as an internet user do no have the right to exploit sites that potentially offer free copyrighted material. For example TLK 2 is on youtube in its entirety, and in decent quality too. Sure the person who uploaded it is the real offender there but if you watch it on there (and almost everything on there belongs to some company or another) then you infringe the copyright laws, though YouTube is governed by its three strike policy meaning that viewers are not held accountable for anything. Sorry but the bill if anything protects human rights, as artists and creators they have the right to expect their content to not be available for free online.
Not that I support it in the slightest though.[/quote]
Actually, the bill doesn't support human rights. What it wants to do is enforce copyrights so that people will have to pay for products. This is a good thing.
But the way it goes about enforcing copyright is the big issue. Currently, if you think that a someone is infringing copyright against you, you go get evidence, go to a court, show your evidence, and then the judge decides if you are correct or not. Often times, the defendant gets to defend themselves and try to explain why they are or are not infringing.
The bill wants to bypass this due process of the law and allow the immediate silencing and disposal of anything that is even suspected of breaking copyright. No court, no warning, nothing. Only the big companies that hold copyrights have a say, as in "I think that person X is infringing with their website." BAM! Person X has their website removed from all search engines, the funding immediately cut off, and the only way to access is is by direct IP address.
SOPA doesn't protect human rights. It protects copyrights. In the worst way possible. Sorry Flip, but you got it all wrong.
Not really. You as an internet user do no have the right to exploit sites that potentially offer free copyrighted material. For example TLK 2 is on youtube in its entirety, and in decent quality too. Sure the person who uploaded it is the real offender there but if you watch it on there (and almost everything on there belongs to some company or another) then you infringe the copyright laws, though YouTube is governed by its three strike policy meaning that viewers are not held accountable for anything. Sorry but the bill if anything protects human rights, as artists and creators they have the right to expect their content to not be available for free online.
Not that I support it in the slightest though.[/quote]
Actually, the bill doesn't support human rights. What it wants to do is enforce copyrights so that people will have to pay for products. This is a good thing.
But the way it goes about enforcing copyright is the big issue. Currently, if you think that a someone is infringing copyright against you, you go get evidence, go to a court, show your evidence, and then the judge decides if you are correct or not. Often times, the defendant gets to defend themselves and try to explain why they are or are not infringing.
The bill wants to bypass this due process of the law and allow the immediate silencing and disposal of anything that is even suspected of breaking copyright. No court, no warning, nothing. Only the big companies that hold copyrights have a say, as in "I think that person X is infringing with their website." BAM! Person X has their website removed from all search engines, the funding immediately cut off, and the only way to access is is by direct IP address.
SOPA doesn't protect human rights. It protects copyrights. In the worst way possible. Sorry Flip, but you got it all wrong.
