[Mihomine]

Quote

is funny how people post a "i agree with SOPA, it's a cool thing " without any arguments to back their statement.

"I agree with" is a statement ?

[Ater Eva]

Mihomine, on 13 January 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

"I agree with" is a statement ?

How is it "not a statement"? Looks like trolling to me though, after seeing your later posts.

Ontopic:
Even though I'm far away from US (thank god), I'd definately vote no.

No thankyou, to crippling/killing google and other vital internet services. If they've problem with piratism - that's no reason to suddently destroy big part of internets. Like written above, problem lies in lack of working & user friendly services selling these products, more than in people "wishing to avoid buying them". Piratism is just emphasising this underlying problem.

[tamagoyaki]

Mihomine, on 13 January 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

Which means that the idea is bad because your government sux.

something like that

Mihomine, on 13 January 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

Some troll should get a life.

statement

Quote

A definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing: "do you agree with this statement?"

the definition you gave is a hard-line philosophy, which is why it said "logic" in quotations.

[Jubilee-]

how to steop them?

[tamagoyaki]

the more you like it, the more it will go away.

[Ater Eva]

Mihomine, on 13 January 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

Some troll should get a life.

Yes, you.
Mixing up linguistics and logic, on a forum, on offtopic subject, doesn't help the topic uknow.

If SOPA was implemented it'd hurt almost every internet user these days, I don't see real reason for anyone on internets to support it.

[tamagoyaki]

Grayy, on 13 January 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

is funny how people post a "i agree with SOPA, it's a cool thing " without any arguments to back their statement.

Imagine tomorrow you wake up and you no longer have access to popular sites like Youtube, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter etc etc because they got shut down for hosting and promoting copyrighted material by user/fun made projects.

I would agree with it too if it was reasonable piracy hunting, although to be honest in the times that we live, for example, who would pay 20euro for a dvd movie instead of downloading for free from a torrent site? Is wrong, "unethical" but if sh1t were in reasonable prices there wouldn't be a need to start making all this piracy fuzz.

Anything that tries to deny user freedom or creativity should be casted aside.

Fck SOPA.

what reasonable prices?

[erebus2075]

we all know that the way they want to do it is wrong and it needs some changes for it to work;

now when that's said i think most of us can agree that there need to be some laws in place where the enforcers got decend tools to uphold those laws.

as it is now most free pages for uploading is used 90% for illegal content and 10% for legal (just random numbers).
the amount of illegal content on most free uploading sites is immense and there is nothing to stop it at this point and to stop something like this there is a need for some insanely harsh laws to force the creators of the site to actually hold some kind of control over what is there (which we can clearly see isn't the case on something like youtube, would take me under 5 seconds to find copyright material which is illegal to upload without permission).


Now why as a user do i think its a good idea to have a lot more control then what we got now?.

I will just list a few;

new software/tech; new games, new software, new thinking and new creativity is stumped beneath the big fat foot of giant corporations;
firms like blizzard, riot, nc,sony, etc have the resources to secure their product making you actually work REALLY hard to crack it and use it without a valid license, some of the products you simply just can't use without the license so these big time giants doesn’t really suffer much under the current state and it would be in there best interest to keep the current state as it is since it stumps down the competition;
while small indi-firms and new creators got absolutely no chance of making it, even if they make something insanely good, beyond anything we could imagine they do not have the time or effort in a first attempt to secure their product and they will make next to nothing on it and be forced to sell it to a big firm in order to make a minimum amount of money;
if it wasn't so easy to pirate stuff as it is now those small firms would be able to profit over their innovation and thereby have the capital it takes to make something even better build over their first genius idea;

this is properly the biggest issue with the laws as it is now, but it's definitely not the only one;
the total lack of control makes it insanely easy to post whatever you feel like, you can make whatever conspiracy/cult/etc you decide and you can mind-trick people into the most nyerked up things on a global scale;

scamming/online stealing/etc; would be next to impossible to do with a law resembling this, it would be so easy to stop these things;

pedofile/snuff/etc would be next to impossible as well due to how easy it would be to shot the communities distributing these things down.


As it stands now the total lack of control have gone wild and it's more then clear that the ”freedom comes with responsibility” have not been uphold and that people on a global scale cannot control themselves so there is a need for rules and enforcers which can force people to stay within the laws that protect us all and more impotent protect our future evolution and insure that we evolve to a better species not a worse.

I think a system where you are being logged for what you do online, what do you upload, download, write, read, etc. could be beneficial for society. Making you responsible for your actions. Something that we humans have totally forgotten after we got the anonymity of the internet to ”protect” us from ANY and ALL actions we may do online which we would Never do IRL because we know it's wrong and that it have consequences which we can't handle if we do so.

Of course I do realize that a control this harsh will properly be misused by the system but it's a matter of preference; would you rather have the system misusing the control which keeps you and your evolution “safe” (AKA police, law, community, etc) or have full free rain and just hope people can control their actions themselves (anerki); I am pretty sure we tried both as a society and that we found the answer for what is best for the human race as we Need each other no matter how we turn and twist it.

[Mihomine]

tamagoyaki, on 14 January 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

something like that

A troll would actually try to get people mad trying to make them agree on a point that have no sense. I agree with the SOPA but I never said anybody should actually agree with it nor that the idea was da solution.

Quote

the definition you gave is a hard-line philosophy, which is why it said "logic" in quotations.

Oh... I see, well why do I need arguments to agree with something then ?

Quote

If SOPA was implemented it'd hurt almost every internet user these days, I don't see real reason for anyone on internets to support it.

There are if you have friends doing artistic stuff or that you dont feel like bonded to the internet and still visit the library.

[Nobody]

Ummm erebus, Minecraft? Look how well they're doing under the current system and they came from nothing. Look at Angry Birds and others as well. They're doing just fine and they're not big companies. IMHO.

The entire infrastructure of the internet was created with the idea that your general person actually tries to be good. It's open and everybody has the same access. I actually agree with the philosophy behind it and the general people I see do support the artists they like by buying their stuff. When I grew up (i.e. before the Internet heh), there were fewer opportunities available to create and share with other people. The large media companies controlled information and they fed you the artists that you were supposed to like. You never really heard indie people unless you lived in a city big enough to support them. All that has changed - whether you like it or hate it, just imagine life without the connectedness of facebook, twitter, forums, and the outlets for creativity like deviantART. What if you, the common person weren't able to get to potential investors through places like Kickstarter?

Think about it, because all of those places depend on user content. The main reason they exist is because they too are based around the core concept that your general person will try to do the right thing. Unfortunately, as you have pointed out, not everybody plays nice. And if your philosophy is that people are inherently bad and need to be controlled, there's nothing I can say to change your outlook and I'm not going to try. There are certainly ways to abuse any system and it just depends on whether you want to design for the good people or to avoid the bad ones.

Whether or not you believe that though, SOPA is still a bad idea. It's going to destroy the community sites that we have because their whole site can be taken down for a single infringement and it's not really going to attack real pirates (whom will be ready for it). Anybody that wants to avoid SOPA entirely just needs to VPN into a non-USA country. Seems like a lot of work when it's so simple just to get around it. It's obvious that the law was written by people that have absolutely no clue about technology and the whole thing is just one big bungle. IMHO.

[erebus2075]

Nobody, on 14 January 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

Ummm erebus, Minecraft? Look how well they're doing under the current system and they came from nothing. Look at Angry Birds and others as well. They're doing just fine and they're not big companies. IMHO.

you are taking genres that hardly existed before these title's and you are taking FTP title's which Of couse can't be pirated.

rather or not you find the impact on the developers of software due to the easy acces and distribution of pirated copies is enough together with stopping the misuse of the freedom to make such a change, is a individual opinion.

as i stated i think it's a good idea as a overall idea(need some tweeking but rather too much then too little as a start point);
i base this on the constant prof that humans are Not good by nature and if we are not restricted most humans will forget the line between right and wrong or we will straight out ignore it.
We all know pirating is illegal and for good reasons none the less i doubt any of us ain't doing it.
Humans will always do what is beneficial for them some without any concern for others; some of us does have the ability to look beyond ourselves but still we will lack the ability to see far enough to uphold every law there is and the longer we can go without consequence the longer we will go until some one stops us. That's human nature and if we look at the humans as a whole this is not going to change in our life time; (yes there are a very few morally correct people that never breaks the rules but these are so few that all the others are making them invisible in the overall picture).

We have had our chance for many years to prof that we can handle the responsibility of total freedom online; and we have miserably failed to the point where such a extreme law have became a reality to consider to fix the dmg which we have done due to our total lack of the responsibility that we should have concentrated on while we used the freedom we where given.

If sites that depends on user content is to exist after such a law they will actually have to do a effort in keeping the sites without illegal content; this means instantly removing reported content which breaks any law; I do not see the problem in this, if your hosting illegal content and do not have the ability to control it or removing the content not supposed to be there within reasonable time then you shouldn't be hosting and you should be punished for enabling people to freely distribute illegal content on your site.

What I see happening to social sites like youtube,facebook, twitter, etc; which depends on user content is a higher lvl of control and the possibility to hold people personal responsible for what they upload/write/do on these sites; this will require you to registration of personal informations which identify you as You(this would be stuff like address, credit card, driver license, social security number etc. stuff that you will need to check up on to let people registry and use your website) so that IF you choose to break the laws you will be the one held accountable to this and the sites themselves will have a MUCH easier time to simply permanently block users that cannot control themselves from the sites;
I do not see the harm if not misused by the system in a control like this; if you keep within the rules you will never feel it; if you don't you will be punished as you should.

So it all comes down to the “will it be misused” well properly, there will of course be cases where a system like this is misused; but the system as it is now is misused as crazy as well, so the question is;
1; do you want a system controlled by the law/authority? As we have chosen in society with police/court/etc.
2: or do you want a anerki where every person does what they damn well please and you got no way of effectively controlling anything.

Now that question was made thousands of years ago and which we have to this day IRL society; now the internet have become such a close connection to RL that we will have to make this chose for the internet; and for good reason I know what I will chose when the day come:

whether it's correct as the law have the right words as it is set now isn't my main concern since I know that this will change a hounded times over the next few years, but in my eyes it's a step in the right direction;

edit;

I hope that within the next 10 years the online system have changed entirely and to use any forum type sites you will have needed to verify who you are; making you directly responsible of the content you may post and thereby removing 90% of all bad content which shouldn't have been there in the first place:
thereby making the internet into a part of our modern day society and thereby a part of our laws and rules which applies under that society, which it obviously should be.

At this point you find a unlimited amount of lets just call it “spam” for lack of a better word; which contribute nothing positive to the community and in most cases is hurtful for the society as a whole.

This post has been edited by erebus2075: 14 January 2012 - 02:20 PM

[Ater Eva]

I did read all of your text erebus, but I'd like to reply on this specific part which describes the problem well enough, red text on emphasised part:

erebus2075, on 14 January 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

I do not see the harm if not misused by the system in a control like this; if you keep within the rules you will never feel it; if you don't you will be punished as you should.

So it all comes down to the “will it be misused” well properly, there will of course be cases where a system like this is misused; but the system as it is now is misused as crazy as well, so the question is;
1; do you want a system controlled by the law/authority? As we have chosen in society with police/court/etc.
2: or do you want a anerki where every person does what they damn well please and you got no way of effectively controlling anything.

But internet is nothing like "outside world". Internet is not governed by laws of any specific country and never will... Like Nobody wrote before, those who made up this law proposal (SOPA) have no clue whatsoever of internets infrastructure.

No matter what you'd do - people can use proxies/VPNs to bypass it no matter what. If you think authorities can tell these proxyservers to log everything what goes through them and pass it to them; there' 2 reasons why that won't happen/solve it:

#1 The physical server can be in Timbuktu or Irak or Brazil or Ugalabugala-land in southern Africa. First the authorities would need someone who speaks their language, then they'd need to know what kind of laws they have. But even if it's the president of United States asking, the Ugalabugala-chief can tell him piss off, and even if USA prevents all connections to this specific proxy out of uncountable possible proxies among all, it doesn't really solve the problem...

#2 It's against the principle of making them anonymous (real life example: Chinese people who use it to read foreign news), the server holders would rather shut them down than make them non-anonymous.

Put in short: it's impossible to limit the internet without crushing/illegitimating it all, but that's also impossible (for manymany reasons)

[erebus2075]

Ater Eva, on 14 January 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

I did read all of your text erebus, but I'd like to reply on this specific part which describes the problem well enough, red text on emphasised part:


But internet is nothing like "outside world". Internet is not governed by laws of any specific country and never will... Like Nobody wrote before, those who made up this law proposal (SOPA) have no clue whatsoever of internets infrastructure.

No matter what you'd do - people can use proxies/VPNs to bypass it no matter what. If you think authorities can tell these proxyservers to log everything what goes through them and pass it to them; there' 2 reasons why that won't happen/solve it:

#1 The physical server can be in Timbuktu or Irak or Brazil or Ugalabugala-land in southern Africa. First the authorities would need someone who speaks their language, then they'd need to know what kind of laws they have. But even if it's the president of United States asking, the Ugalabugala-chief can tell him piss off, and even if USA prevents all connections to this specific proxy out of uncountable possible proxies among all, it doesn't really solve the problem...

#2 It's against the principle of making them anonymous (real life example: Chinese people who use it to read foreign news), the server holders would rather shut them down than make them non-anonymous.

Put in short: it's impossible to limit the internet without crushing/illegitimating it all, but that's also impossible (for manymany reasons)

first; thanks for reading the whole thing^^ was a lot of text (did read your entire post before writing)

I do agree that the law as it is laid out here is lacking a lot to say the least; but what it will accomplish if it pass is that big sites like youtube,facebook, twitter ect will be forced to make a system where only people that can identify themselves digital is allowed to post, this will be made to make sure it's the people posting and not the website that will be held responsible for the actions of the user (as it should be).

The possibility to block sites will stop most people from having the ability to break the laws;
I do realise how you can use proxy,dns and various setups to get around different blockage of sites; but most people do not know this and only few of us are able to do it in practice, and even FEWER of us are ready to use the energy, time and money it takes to do this just to be able to pirate something which I could just pay for 10 bucks (which I will make back a lot faster then the time it would take me to get around such a system; and don't forget decent proxies does cost money to use)

so in my eyes, if we assume it's not major misused by the government of “WeDon'tGiveAnyerk” this is what it will accomplish;

1; big time sites will be forced to control what people are uploading and removing illegal content which will result in
A: the removal of illegal content from any website within very short time after reported.
B: the ability to hold people personal responsible for any breaking of the laws within their country if they post stuff; which would result in a much better community since lets face it the things people do over the internet are oftend stuff they would never say or do IRL becaurse of the consequence that would be inflicted on them personally and they only do it becaurse they are 100% anonymity and thereby beyond reach of the reaction for their actions.

2: stop sites that are made directly to distribute illegal content by simply shutting them out= 99/100 people that are using illegal software now wouldn't do it because its simply not worth all the trouble for a measly 10bucks(which you will properly be paying the proxies used for it instead).


Now the only negative thing I can see happening is to sites like this; aion source got VERY limited powers to control who is who and even less authority to keep that data stored (actually its a direct violation of the personal data law if they did so).
I see a problem here; not on this site itself since it would easily be fixed if offered to the actual owners of aion so they could use the actual login where all your personal data is already stored fixing it this way: but I see a problems with sites that are not associated with a service that hold personal data and are not allowed to do so, since these sites would be relying on VERY!! good admins and good users to report illegal links etc.
but again is this really such a big problem? Shouldn't the admins of a site already be reacting to reports and removing illegal content as it is?
The only real difference in reality is that those sites that doesn't do it will now be punished as they damn right should be.

Again as a last line for this post; YES I do realise that the law as it is stated now is VERY lacking and the fact they can shut down youtube INSTANTLY for having 1 link to piratebay for 1second; is just stupid, and it needs to be rewritten so that it's reasonable made and doesn't give a 100% “free to do wtf we want” card for whoever is administrating this area of the law.

This post has been edited by erebus2075: 14 January 2012 - 03:16 PM

[Ater Eva]

Again...I read it all but I try refrain from making too excessive post, though it's nice to see some people with insightful replies.

Let me ask of you, do you understand that internet itself is not and can never be governed by single countries laws?

Also do you understand, that saying "shutting down" in this context, means only blocking to&from -access in USA, nowhere else?

For services like youtube, Wikipedia, Google, Twitter, ... they wouldn't agree to such limitations. The cause of this law would be making "a 2nd firewall of China" in USA. It'd cripple internet, but definately it would not shut it nor these services down, even if they contain pirated software or files.

[erebus2075]

Ater Eva, on 14 January 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

Again...I read it all but I try refrain from making too excessive post, though it's nice to see some people with insightful replies.

1,Let me ask of you, do you understand that internet itself is not and can never be governed by single countries laws?

2.Also do you understand, that saying "shutting down" in this context, means only blocking to&from -access in USA, nowhere else?

3.For services like youtube, Wikipedia, Google, Twitter, ... they wouldn't agree to such limitations. The cause of this law would be making "a 2nd firewall of China" in USA. It'd cripple internet, but definately it would not shut it nor these services down, even if they contain pirated software or files.

1,yes i do the software behind it as well as the laws of the individual countries wouldn't allow this;
but the general laws which applies to the internet right now are mostly global and as it stands now they are still there it's just not possible to enforce the laws which is what they are trying to do (they are quite bad at it but it's what they are trying to accomplish, getting a tool where they can actually enforce the laws which is already in place).

2.and yes i do understand that as well; but "shutting down" a site from every user from the usa would have a major impact on big websites; and this is only the beginning, once 1 country within a "union" starts doing this others will follow; it's only a matter of time before some enforcement system will be laid upon the internet from every country around, the fact it took this long before it started in our side of the world is quite "impressive".

3. i don't know how the big websites would apply to these changes; but i am pretty sure they would change fast; setting up a ”youtube or facebook” type site within the usa will be VERY easy and fast, if they decided to block of youtube/facebook etc, most people within the usa would start using these sites; since A LOT! Of the general music/video's etc which is legally on youtube is posted from the united states they would easily replace any of these sites.

I think the fear of being replaced alone is enough to make these sites change and change FAST: they already set in restriction functions within your own posting options where you can restrict people from other countries to see the vid you posted; i doubt they wouldn't find a solution to make the united states NOT block them and effectively replace their service.

Taking into account that other countries will follow fast if it works even the slightest will make it even harder (can name several countries that would LOVE the ability to totally block of sites like piratebay; danmark for once have blocked that site from all danish dns (use another dns yes, but even that is too hard for a lot of people to do) .)

[Ater Eva]

I think we both speculate the very opposites...you trust on that services and other countries would follow example given by USA...where as I speculate that the rest of world rather leaves USA in same position as China is in right now.
(This all assuming IF this law proposal is accepted as it is)

Can I say else but, "we will see"?

(I'd add something about alternative, being more user friendly web-shop services with reasonable prices, example in game industry being "Steam", but I'm too sleepy to write any more comprehendable text..mby tomorouw )

[erebus2075]

Ater Eva, on 14 January 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

I think we both speculate the very opposites...you trust on that services and other countries would follow example given by USA...where as I speculate that the rest of world rather leaves USA in same position as China is in right now.
(This all assuming IF this law proposal is accepted as it is)

Can I say else but, "we will see"?

(I'd add something about alternative, being more user friendly web-shop services with reasonable prices, example in game industry being "Steam", but I'm too sleepy to write any more comprehendable text..mby tomorouw )

you do realize china isn't isolated from us becaurse of the laws/rules set by their government, but by the lack of our ability to READ and understand what they write on their sites :P
i played aion china before the eu version was released btw ^^ (problem isn't using their sites but that i don't understand anything they write :P hehe)

there is a need for a system that can enforce the rules over the internet every one agree's with this; the problem is to find a good way to do this; what usa is doing is an attempt to do this; and it's not a question of IF but WHEN the rest of the world will try to find their solution for this ever growing problem ^^

[Ater Eva]

erebus2075, on 14 January 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

you do realize china isn't isolated from us becaurse of the laws/rules set by their government, but by the lack of our ability to READ and understand what they write on their sites :P
i played aion china before the eu version was released btw ^^ (problem isn't using their sites but that i don't understand anything they write :P hehe)

It's about cencorship...not about physical blockade or so. (Despite the common metaphor "firewall of china".)

erebus2075, on 14 January 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

there is a need for a system that can enforce the rules over the internet every one agree's with this

No matter how much I think of that, no matter which way, I cannot agree to that. Internet hosts far too many cultures to have common rules...it's really impossible to make internet like one big country with it's laws and whatnot. I just cannot agree to that. :/

[erebus2075]

Ater Eva, on 14 January 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

It's about cencorship...not about physical blockade or so. (Despite the common metaphor "firewall of china".)

No matter how much I think of that, no matter which way, I cannot agree to that. Internet hosts far too many cultures to have common rules...it's really impossible to make internet like one big country with it's laws and whatnot. I just cannot agree to that. :/

there are quite a few rules which are the same for every country; actually most rules are the same "don't steal, don't kill, don't harash etc etc".
the basic rules which is the same for every country is what they are making a enforcement system to uphold and which the internet community haven't been able to uphold; the most basic thing like "don't steal" is something that almost every one that is using the internet is breaking.

i doubt there are many rules in place that doesn't come over a global lvl; of course there will be some, but that's why there is a law about it to prevent the difference between what's legal and not to be broken; in Sweden some things are allowed which isn't in other countries; the stuff that ain't allowed should of course not be presented in the countries where it's against the law;

as a good example; in the "Philippines" the age of consent for sex is 12 years; does that mean that if some one import a Philippine girl of the age of 12 into the united kingdoms it's ok to have sex wih her bc she is from the "Philippines" where it's legal? NO OF COURSE NOT!!.
in the same way there is rules which is being broken from country to country duo to the lack of any enforcement system and there should be one which could insure that the laws of that country isn't broken by the sites you are assessing;

BTW; a "Philippines" website posting "child pornographic" of children 12 years old would be banned from every country within a day; even though it's properly legal in their country (don't know haven't checked the rules for this) and you hear no one complain about this, but if you are posting illegal content of other nature it's not ok to block it even though it's illegal in the country it's viewed?
that's just double standard and immorality; I do believe that if it's illegal there is a reason for it and the laws should be upheld; we can then discuss what should be legal and what shouldn't; I am sure some pedofile nutback would love some of the sites which is currently blocked to be unblocked, but I for once are strongly against this in the same way as I am against the constant breaking of laws with the excuse that you can't control the internet; clearly you can and clearly you have and for the better good.

Illegal stuff should be punished; which way is the best way to do so we could discuss all day; but first we gotta be able to agree that if it's illegal it should be punished.

[tamagoyaki]

my country's age of consent was never 12 years old even if you put the name in quotations.