Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Why are none of you talking about this???

Posted by   + Show Post

Sopa and Pipa protests not over, says Wikipedia

Wikipedia Wikipedia's blacked-out message of yesterday's protest was replaced with a white "thank you"

Related Stories

After a 24-hour blackout, Wikipedia has returned to full working order but declared: "We're not done yet."

The site had blocked its content for 24 hours in protest at proposed anti-piracy legislation in the US.

The encyclopaedia said the site had been viewed 162 million times, with eight million people following instructions to contact politicians.

The protest led to eight US lawmakers withdrawing their support for the proposed bills.

Two of the bill's co-sponsors, Marco Rubio from Florida and Roy Blunt from Missouri, are among those who have withdrawn their support after "legitimate concerns".

But backers of the legislation, led by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), described the action as an "irresponsible" publicity "stunt".

The Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (Pipa) have caused considerable controversy among internet users and businesses since the plans were proposed in October last year.

Full Article


Click here to sign Googles Petition

by on Jan. 19, 2012 at 4:45 PM
Replies (111-116):
RowenaCherry
by Member on Jan. 23, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Janet,

Have you read the bill? It's 70 pages long and cannot be skimmed. You say "read ABOUT" the bill, but unfortunately, anyone may write anything they please about any subject. There is no compulsion to tell the truth.

You have every right to your opinion, but if what you are saying has no factual basis, but is hysterical speculation that you are recycling, you should not be offended if persons who read all 70 pages of the bill itself point out that you are misinformed.

Quoting JanetMonroe1991:

go watch the youtube video that was posted and go READ about the bill and then say what you are saying...you people who think this bill would do no harm are as stupid as the people who wrote this bill in the first place. do you think everything on places like google or facebook or cafemom is 100% legit? would you like those sites shutdown because one user posts one copyrighted link or posts a link to a site that streams video. i can just in my bookmarks page list links to 20-30 copyrighted videos that are on youtube...dido with the facebook video player, dido with googles video player. so yes...i am worried because it is so open ended that it gives them the power to do whatever they want. 

try reading the bill then come back and tell us we have nothing to worry about. while the other makes it a crime as you said it doesn't give the power to go on a witchhunt or shutdown something because they suspect(which can easily translate into we don't like a website so we are going to go "suspect" it but never find proof because we dont need to) a website is up to no good. would you like to lose your job or your house because the bank suspects that you are up to no good?


RowenaCherry
by Member on Jan. 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM

JAlonso,

If you are knowingly watching an illegal performance of a copyrighted movie, you are technically breaking the law, (so if you were harassed, it would not be "for no reason".  However, the chances of anyone taking an interest in you are very slim. Clear your cache. Don't post the links in public forums. Don't boast... because if you do, you cannot then claim that you had no idea that what you were doing was wrong.

Taking someone to court is very expensive, so if the movie companies wanted to make an example of someone, they would be more likely to sue someone who was selling links, encouraging others to "pirate", or otherwise being aggressive about copyright infringement. 

It's not just the government or agencies who can capture your IP address. Anyone can do that, if they really want to. 

SOPA and IP Protect have been put on the back burner, but whatever anyone else tells you, bear in mind that those laws were intended to deal with FOREIGN sites.

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act which was passed by President Clinton's administration in 1998 made domestic copyright infringement illegal including all copying and "sharing" of copyrighted movies, ebooks, music, photographs etc etc.

The DMCA does give the Feds and Courts the right to impose prison terms and fines of up to $250,000 per movie or e-book on copyright infringers. So far, most judges are imposing more realistic fines.

Hope this helps.

Quoting JAlonso:

I watch streaming video and I believe a few were through Megaupload. How does that effect us folk that only watch vids and not download them? I haven't read the actual bills and the other, already in place laws, but considering the fact that the government and other agencies can spy on us and capture our ISP's, what does that do to those of us only streaming vids? Does any of these bills and laws give them the right to harass us for no reason?


JAlonso
by Stalkerazzi on Jan. 23, 2012 at 2:07 PM
1 mom liked this

And this is exactly where the government is way too big for its own good. Watching streaming video should never be lumped in with anyone actually downloading illegal content, or uploading for that matter. They are not the same. We who watch streaming video didn't put the content out there. It was already there for the watching.

Our government needs to stop this madness and back the hell off. I do so hope for a revolution sometime soon because they keep undermining our freedoms. It doesn't matter that SOPA is "supposed" to stop illegal content from being distributed. It will do much more than that and anyone that believes otherwise is obviously blind.

Good luck trying to convince people that SOPA is a good thing. I and many others will do everything in our power to stop it. Good day.

Quoting RowenaCherry:

JAlonso,

If you are knowingly watching an illegal performance of a copyrighted movie, you are technically breaking the law, (so if you were harassed, it would not be "for no reason".  However, the chances of anyone taking an interest in you are very slim. Clear your cache. Don't post the links in public forums. Don't boast... because if you do, you cannot then claim that you had no idea that what you were doing was wrong.

Taking someone to court is very expensive, so if the movie companies wanted to make an example of someone, they would be more likely to sue someone who was selling links, encouraging others to "pirate", or otherwise being aggressive about copyright infringement. 

It's not just the government or agencies who can capture your IP address. Anyone can do that, if they really want to. 

SOPA and IP Protect have been put on the back burner, but whatever anyone else tells you, bear in mind that those laws were intended to deal with FOREIGN sites.

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act which was passed by President Clinton's administration in 1998 made domestic copyright infringement illegal including all copying and "sharing" of copyrighted movies, ebooks, music, photographs etc etc.

The DMCA does give the Feds and Courts the right to impose prison terms and fines of up to $250,000 per movie or e-book on copyright infringers. So far, most judges are imposing more realistic fines.

Hope this helps.

Quoting JAlonso:

I watch streaming video and I believe a few were through Megaupload. How does that effect us folk that only watch vids and not download them? I haven't read the actual bills and the other, already in place laws, but considering the fact that the government and other agencies can spy on us and capture our ISP's, what does that do to those of us only streaming vids? Does any of these bills and laws give them the right to harass us for no reason?



Daisypath Anniversary tickers
brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Jan. 23, 2012 at 2:36 PM

That is not due process.

They could have taken down the files they have complains for/with. They could have taken down the high traffic files that people claim are easy to know if they are copyright infringements or not.

They choose not to take the evidence. They choose to take the site down. That is completely different.

If the people choose to Delete their accounts-Their account information and payment history would still exist. Everything they uploaded and from where would still exist.

Your analogy is a little off. Imagine you are a billionaire. Say-Rupert Murdoch. Say you are indicted with crimes regarding one of your News Networks. They take him, and the files they need from his company.

They don't shut down any of the businesses he owns, or the news networks directly involved. They just take what they need.

And Uploading files is not the same as a bank robbery. If he is found guilty and his website is proven (In Court-Not behind the scenes during an 'investigation') to be performing illegal activities then they should shut it down. If there are more damages that occurred within that time-Then have him pay for it.

Again-I am not saying MegaUpload did not do anything wrong. I am just saying the way they went around shutting the website down is wrong. I know everyone keeps bringing up, "Years and years of investigations have been conducted" but people have never been arrested based solely on investigations and research. They need the trial. They need to give these people the option to defend themselves.

Quoting RowenaCherry:

According to the notice posted on http://www.megaupload.com/ the charges include criminal copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, racketeering, and money laundering.

The indictment appears to be by a federal Grand Jury.

Grand Juries are not convened lightly, one assumes.

For those who would say that this was done without due process, presumably the "site" is evidence. If a suspect is arrested, the evidence is seized and impounded. Cars get seized by persons who are accused of committing a crime involving their car. Computers are seized. If the Feds left a computer with a suspect, he would be able to delete incriminating information.

I imagine (but don't know) that if people knew that they had broken the law by uploading copyrighted e-books and first run movies, and if they could get at their accounts, they would delete their accounts.

So, seizure is part of the process.

Also, when the police catch a bank robber in the course of a bank robbery, they do not hand him a subpoena and then leave him to continue robbing the bank and its customers, do they? Alleged crimes have to stop while a trial takes place.

For those who want to quibble about whether or not MegaUpload had knowledge that copyrighted information was being uploaded, and they paid a bounty on it....  Presumably, the TOS told people that they were not allowed to upload copyrighted material. All domestic TOS have CYA wording and superficially comply with the DMCA.

The question is, (and the Feds would know), how many formal DMCA notices and ICE complaints were sent to MegaUpload about repeat infringers? Did MegaUpload ban those repeat infringers once it should have been obvious (from the DMCA notices) that they were publishing and distributing copyrighted material? Did MegaUpload continue to pay those same individuals for their heavy traffic even after DMCAs were submitted about those users and specific undeleted files?

We cannot know that. However, we can read the law: DMCA section 512 paying special attention to page 53 which is about red flags.


If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

RowenaCherry
by Member on Jan. 25, 2012 at 4:25 PM
1 mom liked this


But, cookie, the perpetrators are before a judge. They are going to get a trial. In the meantime, the illegal activity has been stopped... okay, along with some legal activity. When a lawbreaker is imprisoned, he cannot do his normal day job, so why do you expect that an alleged money launderer/copyright infringer/etc etc should be permitted to continue to conduct illegal business as usual?

Trials can take months. You surely don't believe that alleged criminals should be allowed to continue to commit alleged crimes while they wait for trial, do you?

punky3175
by Punky on Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:06 PM
And according to latest news stories I saw, two of the seven are still free so it really wouldn't be wise to leave the site up especially with it being alleged that the majority ofthe content WAS infringing. And it could also take months for Dotcom and the others to be extradited to US. That's a long time for their alleged conspirators to destroy evidence.

Quoting RowenaCherry:


But, cookie, the perpetrators are before a judge. They are going to get a trial. In the meantime, the illegal activity has been stopped... okay, along with some legal activity. When a lawbreaker is imprisoned, he cannot do his normal day job, so why do you expect that an alleged money launderer/copyright infringer/etc etc should be permitted to continue to conduct illegal business as usual?

Trials can take months. You surely don't believe that alleged criminals should be allowed to continue to commit alleged crimes while they wait for trial, do you?

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured