Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo, not really. That assumes that pain is somehow illegal or inherently wrong.
This argument is similar to the anti-natalist line: the act of giving birth ensures suffering, so one is obliged not to have children.
I am saying that it is a known fact that most internet connections are used for illegal activities to a significant degree (definitely over 25%, possibly far more). The operators are well aware that they are directly facilitating crime.
Megaupload was shut down on the grounds that although the owners did not them selves upload illegal content, they were aware that they were hosting illegal content, were facilitating the copying of illegal content and were not taking sufficient steps to stop such activity on their services.
I just want to know why a similar argument does not apply to ISPs and the internet in general.
Originally posted by shavixmirMy ISP runs a news server. The usage is somewhat anonymous, but the content on the server is most definitely not. It is a well known fact that 90% of the content going through the news server is illegal.
News servers give you aninomity. Much better, safer and faster than Bittorrent.
Originally posted by twhiteheadProbably almost everything uploaded onto Megaupload was copyrighted by someone. This post is copyrighted by someone -- I don't know if it is me or RHP. But someone holds the copyright (unless RHP TOS means they claim THEY have copyright and then THEY have relinquished it to the public domain; I didn't do any such thing.)
No, not really. That assumes that pain is somehow illegal or inherently wrong.
I am saying that it is a known fact that most internet connections are used for illegal activities to a significant degree (definitely over 25%, possibly far more). The operators are well aware that they are directly facilitating crime.
Megaupload was shut down on the gro ...[text shortened]...
I just want to know why a similar argument does not apply to ISPs and the internet in general.
So if everything on every website is copyrighted, it seems disingenuous to put someone in jail because they did not check to see if the poster was also the holder of the copyright -- how would they know? What if the poster lied?
Originally posted by spruce112358You own the copyright on what you post. But by posting you voluntarily release it to be read by other people on RHP. If you wrote a story and someone else copied and pasted it from RHP to his site to make money off of your work, that would be more analogous.
Probably almost everything uploaded onto Megaupload was copyrighted by someone. This post is copyrighted by someone -- I don't know if it is me or RHP. But someone holds the copyright (unless RHP TOS means they claim THEY have copyright and then THEY have relinquished it to the public domain; I didn't do any such thing.)
So if everything on every web ...[text shortened]... e poster was also the holder of the copyright -- how would they know? What if the poster lied?
Megaupload was about posting material to which other people held the copyright and they knew perfectly well that almost all of it was done illegally.
Originally posted by sh76So if someone collects all your posts into a book and sells it, you should be able to ask the government to shut down RHP because they allowed someone to 'pirate your copyrighted material'?
You own the copyright on what you post. But by posting you voluntarily release it to be read by other people on RHP. If you wrote a story and someone else copied and pasted it from RHP to his site to make money off of your work, that would be more analogous.
Megaupload was about posting material to which [b]other people held the copyright and they knew perfectly well that almost all of it was done illegally.[/b]
The whole SOPA thing makes no sense at all because our technology has gotten way ahead of the technology Gutenberg used to produce the first Bible.
Our notion of copyright still dates from back in that era.
Originally posted by sh76The internet in general is about transferring material to which other people hold the copyright and as I point out in this thread, we all know perfectly well that this is being done illegally.
Megaupload was about posting material to which [b]other people held the copyright and they knew perfectly well that almost all of it was done illegally.[/b]
Originally posted by spruce112358SOPA only aims to stop sites whose main purpose is the distribution of copyrighted material. If one person uses RHP to steal copyrighted material that does not make it a target of SOPA.
So if someone collects all your posts into a book and sells it, you should be able to ask the government to shut down RHP because they allowed someone to 'pirate your copyrighted material'?
The whole SOPA thing makes no sense at all because our technology has gotten way ahead of the technology Gutenberg used to produce the first Bible.
Our notion of copyright still dates from back in that era.
It really might help to read a bit about the legislation.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou may have pointed it out, but it's incorrect. The main purpose of the internet in general is not to distribute materials illegally in violation of other people's copyright. Maybe that's how it works in SA, but that's not how it works in the rest of the civilized world.
The internet in general is about transferring material to which [b]other people hold the copyright and as I point out in this thread, we all know perfectly well that this is being done illegally.[/b]
Originally posted by sh76I have read about the legislation. I read that a single link on RHP that linked to a method to download copyrighted material would become illegal.
SOPA only aims to stop sites whose main purpose is the distribution of copyrighted material. If one person uses RHP to steal copyrighted material that does not make it a target of SOPA.
It really might help to read a bit about the legislation.
And what the 'aim' of a law is, and what it is actually used for are two very different things, as we see with current copyright laws.
Originally posted by sh76What you think the main purpose of the internet is, is irrelevant. Nobody asked Megadownload what their main purpose was.
You may have pointed it out, but it's incorrect. The main purpose of the internet in general is not to distribute materials illegally in violation of other people's copyright. Maybe that's how it works in SA, but that's not how it works in the rest of the civilized world.
The fact remains that the actual use to which the internet is put, is largely illegal - even in your corner of the 'civilized' world.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat's the big deal here?
What you think the main purpose of the internet is, is irrelevant. Nobody asked Megadownload what their main purpose was.
The fact remains that the actual use to which the internet is put, is largely illegal - even in your corner of the 'civilized' world.
When people started driving automobiles, they discovered they needed stop signs. The existing laws, to the extent they existed, didn't envision the speeds, and there was a lack of horse-sense (even if the people weren't looking out to avoid a collision, the horses had been.) Drunk driving laws, speed limits, etc. followed as needed.
So the laws and the internet have to be adjusted to one another. It takes time, it takes testing, etc. etc. And just like auto traffic, the stop signs sometimes go where people have already been hurt; because they have been hurt there.
2 edits
Originally posted by JS357Same with cell phone use while driving. When cell phones first started taking off in the 90s, the idea of making it illegal to talk on a cell and drive would have been laughed at. If you'll recall, in the early going, cell phones were often referred to as "car phones."
What's the big deal here?
When people started driving automobiles, they discovered they needed stop signs. The existing laws, to the extent they existed, didn't envision the speeds, and there was a lack of horse-sense (even if the people weren't looking out to avoid a collision, the horses had been.) Drunk driving laws, speed limits, etc. followed as neede ...[text shortened]... op signs sometimes go where people have already been hurt; because they have been hurt there.
Originally posted by sh76But that is the purpose of these Forums...to distribute copyrighted material!
SOPA only aims to stop sites whose main purpose is the distribution of copyrighted material. If one person uses RHP to steal copyrighted material that does not make it a target of SOPA.
It really might help to read a bit about the legislation.
It might help the legislation to have some face validity.
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet's have a debate about this website: http://www.frostwire.com
I have read about the legislation. I read that a single link on RHP that linked to a method to download copyrighted material would become illegal.
And what the 'aim' of a law is, and what it is actually used for are two very different things, as we see with current copyright laws.
Ooops! RHP must now be shut down.
Originally posted by JS357Correct. Our laws need a wholesale overhaul in the opposite direction from where the US is going.
So the laws and the internet have to be adjusted to one another. It takes time, it takes testing, etc. etc. And just like auto traffic, the stop signs sometimes go where people have already been hurt; because they have been hurt there.