Internet Censorship?

ChewyChewy · Post by **ChewyChewy** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:10 pm

American Censorship Day.

This is worrying me--one site that I frequent has a pop-up saying that if this bill passes, people in the United States won't be able to access it anymore.

Congress is voting on it today--I've heard of problematic bills before but this is looking like the closest they've come.

I really hope they don't pass it....

Esquire Fox · Post by **Esquire Fox** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:21 pm

I was considering posting about this, but it seems to be a very political issue.
This can affect the whole of the internet though, so I believe it is an appropriate discussion topic.

It seems the bill will allow attorneys in the industry (particularly Hollywood) to shut down infringing websites at will and at ease.
For a website to infringe on a copyright, using anything copyright, even a quote from a movie or song, could be seen as an offense.

The bill will also make websites responsible for the content posted by their users.
If someone went around posting links to songs on this forum, it could be shut down if the industry can claim not enough was done to stop it.

There is no way this could be constitutional. The DMCA was the long recognized solution, but lawmakers seem to feel it is not enough.
More information can be found on this page: http://americancensorship.org/infographic.html

CaptainPea · Post by **CaptainPea** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:38 pm

Do please be sensitive in talking about things that relate to politics.
Really, you shouldn't be talking about politics at all.

It's already debatable whether this topic is within Forum Rules, so it'd be best to stay as civil as possible to keep out of trouble.

ChewyChewy · Post by **ChewyChewy** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:54 pm

CaptainPea wrote:Do please be sensitive in talking about things that relate to politics.
Really, you shouldn't be talking about politics at all.

It's already debatable whether this topic is within Forum Rules, so it'd be best to stay as civil as possible to keep out of trouble.

Sorry....

I just thought it might be important.

CaptainPea · Post by **CaptainPea** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:04 pm

That was in reference to a deleted post; I just wanted to make sure everyone was clear.

angelusbr · Post by **angelusbr** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:40 pm

Is this just for the USA? because I got the same pop-up and I live in Brazil.

Penwrite · Post by **Penwrite** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:53 pm

angelusbr wrote:Is this just for the USA? because I got the same pop-up and I live in Brazil.

That's the thing, the way I see it. Websites aren't limited by national barriers. As such, any country around the globe can get affected by this law if the person who made the website lives inside the U.S. Wow, this kinda sucks....

Psykeout · Post by **Psykeout** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:02 pm

censorship will protect you from the harsh world of reality though.

viva la censorship ⊥

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:08 pm

There have actually been a series of bills that the US government has been trying to pass in the past few months regarding internet censorship and privacy.

It started with S.978. Which, if I recall correctly, hasn't been touched since May, so I believe it got pingeonholed.
Then there was another bill from back sometime around August where the goal of the bill was to make it where your ISP kept records of every website that you visited. I can't remember the number of the bill, so I can't remember if it's been acted upon lately, but there were so many problems that could arise with it that I'm sure it hasn't been touched.
And now we've got this, which appears to be a much more extreme version of S.978.

I could give my opinion on /why/ they would even pass this in the first place, but that begins to delve more in politics, so I'll hold my tongue.
But in regards to the general public, there would be /huge/ amounts of backlash, and when you evaluate the pros and cons of passing this bill, it just isn't worth it.

I can understand that they want to reduce piracy, but blacklisting websites and making it a felony to upload a video (when the purpose of the website it's uploaded upon is for viewing, not downloading) is not the way to go. If you think about sites like YouTube, don't these people realize that their material is getting /huge/ amounts of promotion? As an example with the music industry: if they shut down sites like YouTube, there goes the three million+ consumers that listen to pop songs and then buy the music off of iTunes.

I also am not fond of the fact that older members of Congress don't have much background regarding computers, so they could be getting fed spoonfuls of crap and aren't correctly informed about what exactly they're making into law.

I'm sure I could evaluate further, but I'm not writing an essay for a civics class.

Mods: Feel free to scrub any part that you need to.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:21 pm

I can't say I much care for the idea, hopefully this bill gets stalled.
that's all I'm gonna say on the subject.

Jesse James · Post by **Jesse James** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:15 pm

Australia tried to do this, but to no success yet.

It was only really to censor pornography/terrorist sites though.

Oh and a Queensland dentist apparently was on the censorship list too.

Post by **Dissension** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:33 pm

After careful consideration, we've decided this topic brings too much potential for emotionally-charged rhetoric and political nonsense. As such, this thread will be closed and we ask that you refrain from further discussion of this topic in other threads. Thanks for your cooperation!

[ Thread Closed ]

Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:53 pm

By order of Rick himself, it is opened again. try not to get political in here guys.

IceKitsune · Post by **IceKitsune** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:28 am

A few things here its just the House that is voting on it right now (and I've been hearing they didn't actually vote on it anyway it was just a hearing of some kind. It was just a hearing not a vote) so it still has to get though the Senate as well. Then there is the fact that Obama said that he would veto any bill like this anyway. There is also the supreme court that most likely would shut this down for being far too broad in scope anyway.

Moderator Edit: Let's not link to political blog sites, please.

Post by **Dissension** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:42 am

I think it's important to protect copyright holders and the current system doesn't work, so...

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:45 am

Dissension wrote:I think it's important to protect copyright holders and the current system doesn't work, so...

true
but I really doubt that people won't just find a way around whatever new laws are in place.
as far as I'm concerned there isn't a ton you can do.

IceKitsune · Post by **IceKitsune** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:50 am

The bill is far to board in scope. Not like it matters it will get hold up in some committee anyway, just like the other bills like this. Or Obama will veto it (by just sitting on it) Quite frankly I think we need a complete overhaul of copyright law anyway ours is a mess and it just doesn't work in this day and age.

Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:53 am

Seth wrote:
Dissension wrote:I think it's important to protect copyright holders and the current system doesn't work, so...
true
but I really doubt that people won't just find a way around whatever new laws are in place.
as far as I'm concerned there isn't a ton you can do.

this video explains things fairly well. (I'm pretty sure it remains not political, but if I'm wrong, any of my moderator colleagues can feel free to delete this post.)

FlintTheSquirrel · Post by **FlintTheSquirrel** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:33 am

I am in high doubt that it is as bad as that video says it is. I am not really against the idea of stopping videos that hurt the funds of movie and music makers, but the stuff like a forum link to one would give you 5 years in jail sound very.....untrue. This forum would not be effected to much by it I would think, as we never really link movies, though I wonder what such a thing would do to those other YouTube links? Or YouTube all together. Anyways, with something this controversial, I do not think I see the House and Senate coming to much of an agreement.

This is all I can gather from that video anyways, I know not much about it.

Psykeout · Post by **Psykeout** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:08 pm

Dissension wrote:I think it's important to protect copyright holders and the current system doesn't work, so...

It's also important to stop shoplifting. let's close every store that sells things.

Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:14 pm

Psykeout wrote:
Dissension wrote:I think it's important to protect copyright holders and the current system doesn't work, so...
It's also important to stop shoplifting. let's close every store that sells things.

not exactly the same, because those stores are the ones providing it legally. in that metaphor, we should shut down stores that could conceivably unwittingly sell stolen goods. so shut down all pawn shops.

still a fairly valid argument.

IceKitsune · Post by **IceKitsune** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:38 pm

Dissension wrote:I think it's important to protect copyright holders and the current system doesn't work, so...

I think it needs to be completely reformed from the ground up. I mean the original copyright in the US (which is in the constitution) was just 14 years and you had to pay for another 14, that was it, 28 years later no matter what it went into the Public Domain. Now even I believe that is too short for anything (out side of maybe software.) I think we should do it based on a tiered system like software would have one set of copyright length,books would have another and so on. I also think you should have to pay to keep the copyright going like it was originally, I'm saying like $10 dollars max and it can only be done like twice.

(I hope that's not to political but if it is please do delete it.)

zeldakeeper · Post by **zeldakeeper** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:43 pm

At least you don't live in China .-.

Penwrite · Post by **Penwrite** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:53 pm

It just dawned on me. Seeing as the people on these forums have posted countless links to YouTube, Facebook, and other such sites, this entire site could get sued or shut down thanks to this bill.

...wow. I honestly never thought I'd live to see the internet apocalypse.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:49 pm

I really doubt that they would immediatly begin shutting dowwn sites.
so
not really an apocalypse as much as putting up a No Fun Zone

TensaZangetsu · Post by **TensaZangetsu** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:52 pm

I have mixed feelings for this. I dont think it's fair... But... Then again... I'm not sure.
... Nevermind, I'm against it, cause If it passed I might not be able to get on Facebook, or Twitter!

Penwrite · Post by **Penwrite** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:37 pm

Seth wrote:I really doubt that they would immediatly begin shutting dowwn sites.
so
not really an apocalypse as much as putting up a No Fun Zone

I'd prefer calling it the Internet apocalypse, if you don't mind. From the Norse Ragnarok to the Christian Armageddon, no apocalypse happens instantly.

Besides, putting up a No Fun Zone implies creating something. All this bill will do is destroy stuff.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:48 pm

Penwrite wrote:
Seth wrote:I really doubt that they would immediatly begin shutting dowwn sites.
so
not really an apocalypse as much as putting up a No Fun Zone
I'd prefer calling it the Internet apocalypse, if you don't mind. From the Norse Ragnarok to the Christian Armageddon, no apocalypse happens instantly.

Besides, putting up a No Fun Zone implies creating something. All this bill will do is destroy stuff.

perhaps funpocalypse?
no that almost sounds good.
truly a conundrum

Leafolawl · Post by **Leafolawl** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:32 pm

I don't think it should pass.

It's just crazy that they think something like this bill could be good for the internet.

But since I'm too young to make a difference(thank you legal system), I have basically no say in this.

Tiggy · Post by **Tiggy** » Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:55 am

To be honest, they will realize sooner or later and it probably won't pass, I don't think it's THAT much to worry about.

I mean, would they really want to just, demolish so many jobs?

valerio · Post by **valerio** » Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:41 am

it is easy.
The bill passes, people finds a zillion ways to render it useless in its scope and effects. It happened during prohibitionism, the legislators should know better.
AND it could also lead the US voters, for once, to show their opinion on the matter via the most democratic means.
And if the industry really wants to protect copyright, then they better make it sure that people can buy their stuff easily and at a reasonable price. iTunes and Amazon may have their unexplainable fixation with their formats, but they sell like heck, combining a wide offer at good bargaining price. THAT is the way to fight piracy. Just like we buy Rick's dead tree comic, because we like to support the project legally, not to steal it.

angelusbr · Post by **angelusbr** » Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:07 am

Pirates are unstopable. As Valerio said, they'll find a way to bypass this rule.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLMJpHihykI

Esquire Fox · Post by **Esquire Fox** » Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:16 pm

Popular internet celebrity Doug Walker, The Nostalgia Critic, has pointed out that if this bill passes, he'll likely have to stop making videos.
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videol ... ew-digimon (No cursing, SAFE)

There are many comedians on the web that review copyrighted material or use clips from shows to spice up their videos.
As the Doug points out, this bill will not only allow the industry to remove these videos, but will also intimidate uncertain video makers into stopping on their own.

I don't believe this will have much of an impact with the Video Game industry though.
There are a lot of 'Let's Play' videos on Youtube, but those only serve to drive up game sales.
After all, games are about the experience, not the cinematic.
Comedians like the AVGN are most likely safe.

The industries that are pushing the hardest for this bill are the Movie and Music industries.
They lose sales when their copyrighted material is posted in any form on the web.

Psykeout · Post by **Psykeout** » Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:14 pm

Only spam email I've ever not regretted getting. (regarding statistics displayed which I found interesting)

angelusbr · Post by **angelusbr** » Sat Nov 19, 2011 5:48 am

Now I have a question, are the fanfics going to be attacked by this bill as well?

IceKitsune · Post by **IceKitsune** » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:07 pm

angelusbr wrote:Now I have a question, are the fanfics going to be attacked by this bill as well?

Fan Art and Fan Fics will be hit by this as well. You can basically kiss FA, DA, Fanfiction.net and like sites good bye even if some companies or what ever don't mind as long as one does they can have the whole site shut down/blocked. As far as I understand it.

Edit: The reality is that Fan Art and Fiction is actually already illegal its just almost nobody cares plus it would look bad for a company if they sued fans. But if this passes (which it most likely won't) They won't have to sue you to get the site shut down the Government will just do it for them with out anyone knowing.

CaptainPea · Post by **CaptainPea** » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:22 pm

Fan art is not inherently illegal, as some creators encourage derivative works, and you can license your work in such a way as to explicitly allow them. From my understanding, it's only technically illegal if the (fan art's) author doesn't have permission from whoever holds the rights, but even in those cases there's only a few people that go around trying to get fan art taken down since there's not usually any harm done.

IceKitsune · Post by **IceKitsune** » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:43 pm

CaptainPea wrote:Fan art is not inherently illegal, as some creators encourage derivative works, and you can license your work in such a way as to explicitly allow them. From my understanding, it's only technically illegal if the (fan art's) author doesn't have permission from whoever holds the rights, but even in those cases there's only a few people that go around trying to get fan art taken down since there's not usually any harm done.

It is very rare that a company or creator would license a work to actually allow derivative work, most fan art is not taken down simply because the company would look bad doing it. They still could do it at any time its just a PR thing.

angelusbr · Post by **angelusbr** » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:46 pm

I always thought that fanart/fanfic were only illegal if someone tried to make money from them.

Post by **Dissension** » Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:09 pm

That varies by location. Some nations' copyright laws are more lax than others.

I've taken media law classes, so you'd think I'd be able to make a big contribution to this discussion, but meh. x3