|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Censoring The Internet -
09-28-2010, 03:30 AM
"In the United States, a new law proposal called The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced last week, and there will be a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday. If passed, this law will allow the government, under the command of the media copanies, to censor the internet as they see fit, like China and Iran do, with the difference that the sites they decide to censor will be completely removed form the internet and not just in the US." Don't you guys think that this is going a little overboard? I mean, I don't think that this law will pass, but if it somehow does, what does this mean for us in the U.S?
David Segal: Stop the Internet Blacklist 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-28-2010, 03:56 AM
Quote:
To fight against this (unclearly as you have) is like saying dealing drugs is freedom of speech and should be protected by the First Amendment. The example in the link is a perfect one. In theory YouTube could be shut down if this bill were to pass. Now think about it. Who in their right mind would use this to go after YouTube. That is political suicide. No one in the US is going to shut down YouTube.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
09-28-2010, 04:18 AM
On the other hand, I think the internet is already being censored. I don't know who does it all, but I know some private companies are behind it. Have you ever gotten a message that says "this can't be viewed in your region or country"? I've noticed a lot more of that since I've moved to Japan. Another thing I've noticed is if you look for controversial information right after it's hit the news (or before it's hit the mainstream news), you can find some of it... after a month or so good luck! Stuff dissapears all the time. A lot of websites also do self-censoring (I guess that's what you'd call it). You don't see a bunch of nude videos on youtube for this very reason. Music videos and videos with certain songs get taken down all the time. I think there was a torrent site that was no longer available in America right before I left as well...
We're already being censored... I'd be quite happy if it doesn't go any further than it already has.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
09-28-2010, 04:53 AM
Steven generally the sites that have 'this can't be viewed in your country' thing is not really about censorship but proprietry rights.
I have no problem with governments taking action to limit illegal activities on the internet, expecially things like child pornography. As long as any laws allowing censorship are purely restricted to illegal activities and not blatant political censorship (like what happens in China) then I have no real problems with it. The devil though would be in the detail of any such laws and whether they could be open to misuse by governments.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-28-2010, 05:09 AM
Quote:
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
09-28-2010, 05:58 AM
Quote:
And who's to say what is illegal or not? There are certain people who take their morals and try to spread it on everyone else... I think that's what this will boil down to. I think a law like this will be misused by any government. With websites like google and youtube and wikipedia and things like that you get a lot of statistical data. I could imagine programs being made that could search for certain words or phrases in that data and link it back to certain websites or people and having certain things erased or changed automatically without even a human being touching it. The internet is so huge that I could imagine that kind of automation being used, which would damage a lot of what the internet has going for it. It could just be me overthinking it though... at any rate, while I'd like to see certain things gone, I could see how removing one thing on the internet could create a snowball effect that could result in the removal of more and more stuff. As far as torrents go... I think we all know that most of it is bad. I think certain companies purposely put infected data and faulty programs on those websites though making a risk that a lot of people don't want to take. While I may sound like an idiot for saying this, I'm sick of programs being too oversafe about piracy. This is bad for legit customers as sometimes programs just don't work. I've been there and done that... pirated programs work better in that sense because you can get through all that BS. And when you contact these companies about real problems with their software they put you through all kinds of flaming hoops when you need help from their supposed "all star service" or whatever the hell they claim they have. It's kind of a catch 22. You can get software legitamately and risk it not working, or you can get it pirated and have it all cracked and easy to use (which will make them that much stricter about it). You can always buy the software and get the pirated version that actually runs when you tell it to. Ironically, I've bought a music CD made by Sony and there was some kinda funky anti-piracy program in it that made it impossible to burn onto my computer. It's a shame I couldn't load that music onto my Sony MP3 player  .Another use of torrents/p2p is the transfer of large data files... like for music projects or stuff for movies. It can take a couple of days to get a set of burned CDs or a flash drive somewhere over the mail, but you can download some data in a matter of hours at te speeds they have today. To be honest though I don't know how many pros actually use torrent/p2p sites for that... I think FTP transfer is more common (and more private). I think this is a great topic of debate though. This looks like media companies trying to protect the share of the pie that they have, which is slowly being picked away at. I think itunes and things like that might have something to do with it... youtube does as well. Common people now have a chance at producing their own stuff and selling it/providing it at their own will. The internet allows basically unlimited distribution. With the technology that has been created in the late 90's up through the 2000's all that was left for the indpendent folks was a way to distribute (which is what those companies helped with). With digital transfer that isn't really an issue any more. I've never seen them in America before (I haven't been there in 2 years), but in Japan I've seen a lot of TV/Computers lately. With digital TV coming into play soon over here, I don't see the point in buying a new TV when I could buy a computer/TV for the same price or less. With that I could watch Youtube and stuff on my TV as well. I think this is what we're talking about. The internet is gonna be making its way into our livingrooms. Some people aren't comfortable with that idea for moral reasons and some people aren't comfortable with that because people are taking some bites out of their bigass piece of pie.
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
09-28-2010, 06:54 AM
Quote:
Quote:
It has nothing to do with morals. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
09-28-2010, 07:36 AM
"What is the basis for this statement. You steal from me. I want you to stop stealing from me. What is being proposed, if I am reading it correctly, is not religiously or politically motivated. Stop stealing and I am done.
" While the majority of my post was about stealing, I'm not talking solely about that at all. My fear is that censorship will be taken as far as blocking certain things said about certain people... you know, stuff of that ilk. Censorship could easily become a politically and/or religiously motivated thing. "Who is to say what is illegal or not? A child could answer this question. If you take something that doesn't belong to you and give it (or sell it) to someone else, it is illegal. It has nothing to do with morals." A child could answer that question, but unfortunately adults often cannot. While it's obvious that stealing is illegal and wrong, bad words or making fun of god etc. seems to be like a gray area. "Wikipedia, Google and YouTube are not government agencies. They are businesses. Things being changed and erased on Wiki is a problem now. That's what happens when there is no clean "source". " I think it's certainly a clean source for search entries. Things are defitely constantly changing on those websites, I agree with that. "Torrents are bad because they are illegal intellectual property infringement, or because they are infested with viruses?" I think this depends on who you ask. I think it's definitely bad for both of those reasons! "Have you ever made something that has been stolen? " I have been stolen from... as far as making something that has been stolen? Maybe something that I made out legos or something like that haha. I have been mugged of a brand new skateboard before. I was 11 years old and it wasn't a nice experience having two grown men forcefully take it from me on the side of the road. I'm very aware of what it's like to be stolen from (on a completely different level than plain monetary theft...). To use a skateboard as an example of what I was saying earlier-- "let's say that because my skateboard was stolen, I will now put two oval shaped wheels on it to prevent the people who steel it from riding away on it." That is in a nutshell how I feel about some of the anti piracy stuff that is in some software these days. Those funky wheels might stop people from using my board to get away from me, but it's useless as a skateboard. I've had very expensive programs stop working on me out of nowhere because of some anti piracy code that somehow gets activated. I've had to make very expensive international calls to be able to transfer a program from an old computer to a new one. When those companies don't comply, I don't see a problem with downloading a cracked version of their program. I'm not gonna spend $500 on the same thing twice... It's not like I have any intention of using the software on two computers. Those might not be the best examples, but I think that gives you an idea of how I feel about it. "Sony dumped that anti-piracy CD program weeks after enacting it about 5 years ago. That was before MP3 players were really something. " I had no idea about that. Unfortunately, however, that program will be on that CD forever, so I can't load it into my MP3 player. I can always go to a CD rental shop and see if I can rent it and try to load it on my MP3 player that way. "What is the moral objection to Internet in the living room?" I'm thinking that there will be people who want to make a "family experience" out of it. To me, this implies two things: censorship and making money. They can censor it in the guise of protecting morals. That kind of censorship might include the same kind of thing you see in American radio and TV already (and youtube to some extent). I say "guise", though, because I think that censorship can be used by companies to protect their share of what is available (on a website like youtube, which is what I'm thinking about when it comes to "the livingroom"). Making money will happen by advertisers, and maybe making certain videos pay per view (kind of like on digital television in America). Advertising has already started in certain youtube videos, which I'm sure we've all noticed. I've seen advertisements on videos that people make in their own homes. I've heard of regular old people who do reviews getting a hold of products from companies to review on their youtube channels. I think the established media sources don't like this. These people are their competatitors. While a single person can't come close to a whole company, if every other person with a camcorder gets involved it might spell out trouble. I personally think that companies aren't that afraid of going under because of this... the top guy just wants that extra .03% so he can go to the bahamas or buy a bumper boat pool or whatever those ultra rich people do (which I'm quite interested in doing myself  ). I understand where these companies are coming from, but I think it's at too high a cost. There are obviously really repulsive aspects of this whole thing though... like certain types of pornography and that kinda jazz. I would love to see that kinda thing be gone forever, but I certainly don't want some greedy people using that as a vehicle to start censoring every other thing. I'm probably over thinking it... but I can see something like this happen. And for the record I'm not really into pirated media. Especially on a site like youtube. I go on there because it's a(n) (sometimes quite pleasant) alternative to the media that is available on TV or in the stores.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
09-28-2010, 07:49 AM
While the majority of my post was about stealing, I'm not talking solely about that at all. My fear is that censorship will be taken as far as blocking certain things said about certain people... you know, stuff of that ilk. Censorship could easily become a politically and/or religiously motivated thing. That's a "slippery slope" argument. Something good happening might lead to something bad happening in some reality. Therefore that good thing should not happen. I do not subscribe to that logic. A child could answer that question, but unfortunately adults often cannot. While it's obvious that stealing is illegal and wrong, bad words or making fun of god etc. seems to be like a gray area. Who said anything about banning bad words or making fun of "god"? The language of the proposed law doesn't allow for that. I've had to make very expensive international calls to be able to transfer a program from an old computer to a new one. When those companies don't comply, I don't see a problem with downloading a cracked version of their program. I'm not gonna spend $500 on the same thing twice... It's not like I have any intention of using the software on two computers. Those might not be the best examples, but I think that gives you an idea of how I feel about it. If a company doesn't have customer support, then that is their fault, if you are a legitimate customer. I had no idea about that. Unfortunately, however, that program will be on that CD forever, so I can't load it into my MP3 player. I can always go to a CD rental shop and see if I can rent it and try to load it on my MP3 player that way. A mistake by one company five years ago for a handful of weeks does not give the public free license to steal. There was a time not too long ago when you bought a CD it meant you could listen to that CD on your CD player, and not much more than that. There is this sense that buying a CD or DVD means you OWN THE LICENSE to that material, and that is not the case. "What is the moral objection to Internet in the living room?" I'm thinking that there will be people who want to make a "family experience" out of it. To me, this implies two things: censorship and making money. They can censor it in the guise of protecting morals. That kind of censorship might include the same kind of thing you see in American radio and TV already (and youtube to some extent). I say "guise", though, because I think that censorship can be used by companies to protect their share of what is available (on a website like youtube, which is what I'm thinking about when it comes to "the livingroom"). Making money will happen by advertisers, and maybe making certain videos pay per view (kind of like on digital television in America). Advertising has already started in certain youtube videos, which I'm sure we've all noticed. I've seen advertisements on videos that people make in their own homes. I've heard of regular old people who do reviews getting a hold of products from companies to review on their youtube channels. I think the established media sources don't like this. These people are their competatitors. While a single person can't come close to a whole company, if every other person with a camcorder gets involved it might spell out trouble. I personally think that companies aren't that afraid of going under because of this... the top guy just wants that extra .03% so he can go to the bahamas or buy a bumper boat pool or whatever those ultra rich people do (which I'm quite interested in doing myself ). I understand where these companies are coming from, but I think it's at too high a cost. But this has nothing to do with "morality". There are obviously really repulsive aspects of this whole thing though... like certain types of pornography and that kinda jazz. I would love to see that kinda thing be gone forever, but I certainly don't want some greedy people using that as a vehicle to start censoring every other thing. So you do want a morality filter on the Internet? Which is it? You want the things you think are repulsive gone, but not the ones you don't. Thankfully the Internet doesn't work like that.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
09-28-2010, 08:41 AM
MMM, I apologize. I'm looking at a draft that is available and it looks like I had a wrong idea about what we're talking about. The title of this topic may have misled me.
However, if you take a look at the draft (provided I'm looking at the real-deal), check out page 12. 1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall 2 maintain a public listing of domain names that, 3 upon information and reasonable belief, the Depart4 ment of Justice determines are dedicated to infring5 ing activities but for which the Attorney General has 6 not filed an action under this section. 7 ‘‘(2) PROTECTION FOR UNDERTAKING CORREC8 TIVE MEASURES.—If an entity described under sub9 section (e) takes any action specified in such sub10 section with respect to a domain name that appears 11 on the list established under paragraph (1), then 12 such entity shall receive the immunity protections 13 described under subsection (e)(3). That little bit of ambiguity leaves quite a bit of room to "blacklist" a site. It's obvious that they're not gonna shut down a place like youtube, but I could see a lot of pressure being applied. The draft seems pretty clear in its wording besides what I just mentioned, but in the case of most websites these days a lot of the content is user uploaded. It looks like they will 'take care of' any sites used to host "infringing material". While I'd be willing to bet that the majority (which is an understatement) of the purpose of torrent websites is to distribute "infringing" files, there will always be that small percentage of people who use them for legit file transfer. I think any reasonable person could tell that argument won't hold any water though. In the case of a website like dailymotion, however, there are a lot of legit videos on there as well as a lot of what you'd call 'infringing' material. So from what I can tell, this law has been proposed to weed out the blatantly infringing websites that sell infringing copy/clone products and websites that exist solely to host pirated software/media. Everyone else will just become pressured to censor (I reluctantly use that word as it threw me off to begin with) any material (like videos) that are 'infringing'. I could speculate as to what that 'pressure' would result in, but I'll save you the trouble of making fun of my posts about it  I completely misunderstood at first... once I got home and read the draft I got a much better idea of what we're talking about and apologize for wasting your time there  .
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
