• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

REDDIT shutters her doors for jan 18th ONLY to protest sopa

Yawn.

A website that makes money off the infringement of other people's intellectual property is against stopping a law that protects intellectual property.

*shocked*
 
Patranus said:
Yawn.

A website that makes money off the infringement of other people's intellectual property is against stopping a law that protects intellectual property.

*shocked*
Click to expand...

I know of reddit but am not a member/reader. Is there any part of what Patranus said that's untrue?
 
sygyzy said:
I know of reddit but am not a member/reader. Is there any part of what Patranus said that's untrue?
Click to expand...

Its the same with Google/YouTube and all of these "social media" sites that profit from stolen intellectual property.
 
Last edited:
Patranus said:
Yawn.

A website that makes money off the infringement of other people's intellectual property is against stopping a law that protects intellectual property.

*shocked*
Click to expand...

Yes, it's all ripped from other sites. Oh wait no it isn't. It's no different than people posting news articles here. So you think Anandtech should be shut down for the same reason then correct? Same with Huffington Post? Same with any news agency that reports on something the AP reports on?

sygyzy said:
I know of reddit but am not a member/reader. Is there any part of what Patranus said that's untrue?
Click to expand...

Go there and find out for yourself. www.reddit.com

It basically is an online forum and news aggregator where people in the community post things that others comment on and up/down vote it. It's a crowd source way to see what is interesting/important to many people.

Patranus said:
Its the same with Google/YouTube and all of these "social media" sites that profit from stolen intellectual property.
Click to expand...

So you basically want to shut down the internet. Got it.
 
halik said:
Can they do that permanently? That place a hipster libtard clusterfuck...
Click to expand...

There are good parts to reddit still, the front page, however, is a mess. It is a combination of "I smoked pot the other day!", "Anyone with any religious beliefs should be killed!" and "I hate everyone that has more money than me (but love ron paul!)"

Oh, and pointless unfunny crap.

Ever since I limited my subreddits down to the programming and tech related ones, I've been a happy camper.

Reddit proves that the general 16->30yo population is retarded to a large degree.
 
DisgruntledVirus said:
So you basically want to shut down the internet. Got it.
Click to expand...

What does giving the government tools to prevent the theft of intellectual property have to do with shutting down the internet?

If I take intellectual property, repurpose it as my own, and then profit from that you would think that is ok?
Because that is EXACTLY what happens all day on these websites.

If I make a video of a kid rocking out to Ghostbusters for home use that is fine.
If I post that video on YouTube a company (Google) is now profiting from that stolen intellectual property - the Ghostbusters theme song - and that is wrong.
 
Patranus said:
What does giving the government tools to prevent the theft of intellectual property have to do with shutting down the internet?

If I take intellectual property, repurpose it as my own, and then profit from that you would think that is ok?
Because that is EXACTLY what happens all day on these websites.

If I make a video of a kid rocking out to Ghostbusters for home use that is fine.
If I post that video on YouTube a company (Google) is now profiting from that stolen intellectual property - the Ghostbusters theme song - and that is wrong.
Click to expand...

Damn, you are so partisan it hurts.

I refuse to believe that you don't understand the slippery slope this presents.

You claim to be a conservative, but support this, that does not compute. If you really are a conservative, which I doubt, you would object to this addition of power to the Fed. Existing laws provide the Fed ability to shutdown a website for illegal activity - AFTER THEY HAVE PROVED IT. We don't need this law and it sets a precedent that property can be seized based on an accusation.
 
Patranus said:
What does giving the government tools to prevent the theft of intellectual property have to do with shutting down the internet?
Click to expand...
Nothing, so why must they shut down the internet to prevent theft? This bill does little to actually stop piracy, The worst part of the bill (altering the DNS to block questionable websites) already has a work around available.

Any website (anandtech included) that allows user generated content is at risk of being shutdown and killed because someone posts a video that the MPAA or RIAA disagrees with it.

If I take intellectual property, repurpose it as my own, and then profit from that you would think that is ok?
Because that is EXACTLY what happens all day on these websites.
Click to expand...
Youtube? Google? Facebook? These are the websites that could be hurt the most by this.

Nobody is arguing that piracy is good. It isn't. Piracy is bad and destructive. That being said, censorship in the information age is hardly the right approach to preventing it.

If I make a video of a kid rocking out to Ghostbusters for home use that is fine.
If I post that video on YouTube a company (Google) is now profiting from that stolen intellectual property - the Ghostbusters theme song - and that is wrong.
Click to expand...
So the only recourse is to shutdown all of google and YouTube? There is already a law (DMCA) in place that allows for content owners to take down offending videos. Google is VERY quick at taking these down to the point that they don't even check who actually owns the content. You are saying that isn't good enough, that google and youtube should be totally shut down? Because that is exactly what this law puts into effect.
 
Patranus said:
What does giving the government tools to prevent the theft of intellectual property have to do with shutting down the internet?

If I take intellectual property, repurpose it as my own, and then profit from that you would think that is ok?
Because that is EXACTLY what happens all day on these websites.

If I make a video of a kid rocking out to Ghostbusters for home use that is fine.
If I post that video on YouTube a company (Google) is now profiting from that stolen intellectual property - the Ghostbusters theme song - and that is wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, you're advocating that unless something you put online is 100% your content (i.e. I couldn't post this because I'm quoting you if I was making any kind of profit off this post) it should be illegal. Have you ever heard of fair use? Perhaps you should read up on it. The views on copy right law for years in our society has been that you could not do a carbon copy of others work and call it your own, however you could take somebody elses work and modify it to be able to call the modification/commentary your own since it is. Can you please tell me what violates IP law about the description you explained with the kid rocking out to Ghostbusters on Youtube? It does not upload the work in it's entirety, it is not willful infringement attempting to steal the content, and it's intent and purpose is for the kid to be shared with the world not the content of Ghostbusters. Also, as a side note, fair use allows for me to create backups of content I legally purchased for my own archival use. Yet DRM prevents that. Why?

Let me ask you this, do you believe that Apocalyptica covers of Metalica (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x97f-_y93a0 for example) should be illegal? What about Peter Lee Johnson covering songs on the violin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4CLYKFzmoY for example)?
 
Last edited:
DisgruntledVirus said:
Well, you're advocating that unless something you put online is 100% your content (i.e. I couldn't post this because I'm quoting you if I was making any kind of profit off this post) it should be illegal. Have you ever heard of fair use? Perhaps you should read up on it. Our societies views on copy right law for years has been that you could not do a carbon copy of others work and call it your own, however you could take somebody elses work and modify it to be able to call it your own. Can you please tell me what violates IP law about the description you explained with the kid rocking out to Ghostbusters on Youtube? It does not upload the work in it's entirety, it is not willful infringement attempting to steal the content, and it's intent and purpose is for the kid to be shared with the world not the content. Also it allows for me to create backups of content I legally purchased for my own archival use. Yet DRM prevents that.

Let me ask you this, do you believe that Apocalyptica covers of Metalica (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x97f-_y93a0 for example) should be illegal? What about Peter Lee Johnson covering songs on the violin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4CLYKFzmoY for example)?
Click to expand...

Fair use is one thing.
PROFITTING from that "fair use" is another thing.

If for instance I backup a DVD that could be considered by some to be "fair use". Now saw that I go out and sell the original DVD while keeping the backup. Is that still "fair use"? What if I sell the backup? I am not profiting from an act that started out as "fair use".

People act like sites like YouTube are there to promote the free exchange of ideas. That is simply untrue no matter how much Google might try and market it as that. The only purpose of Google is to provide a mechanism to generate traffic to serve advertisements.

Using stolen intellectual property to generate ad impressions is not "fair use".
 
sygyzy said:
I know of reddit but am not a member/reader. Is there any part of what Patranus said that's untrue?
Click to expand...

As usual, he's completely full of crap. 99.99% of things posted to reddit fall under fair use or its a direct link to the content owner.
 
Patranus said:
What does giving the government tools to prevent the theft of intellectual property have to do with shutting down the internet?

If I take intellectual property, repurpose it as my own, and then profit from that you would think that is ok?
Because that is EXACTLY what happens all day on these websites.

If I make a video of a kid rocking out to Ghostbusters for home use that is fine.
If I post that video on YouTube a company (Google) is now profiting from that stolen intellectual property - the Ghostbusters theme song - and that is wrong.
Click to expand...

So, in your opinion, it is ok to steal intellectual property as long as you don't profit off of it?
 
Cogman said:
There are good parts to reddit still, the front page, however, is a mess. It is a combination of "I smoked pot the other day!", "Anyone with any religious beliefs should be killed!" and "I hate everyone that has more money than me (but love ron paul!)"

Oh, and pointless unfunny crap.

Ever since I limited my subreddits down to the programming and tech related ones, I've been a happy camper.

Reddit proves that the general 16->30yo population is retarded to a large degree.
Click to expand...

The whole premise of the model is horribly flawed and it became very apparent once the site gained popularity; Chebyshev's inequality applies. I prefer not to have my news selected by the mean of IQ distribution.
 
Patranus said:
Fair use is one thing.
PROFITTING from that "fair use" is another thing.

If for instance I backup a DVD that could be considered by some to be "fair use". Now saw that I go out and sell the original DVD while keeping the backup. Is that still "fair use"? What if I sell the backup? I am not profiting from an act that started out as "fair use".

People act like sites like YouTube are there to promote the free exchange of ideas. That is simply untrue no matter how much Google might try and market it as that. The only purpose of Google is to provide a mechanism to generate traffic to serve advertisements.

Using stolen intellectual property to generate ad impressions is not "fair use".
Click to expand...

Do you even get how Youtube works? They don't just pay everybody per view. They pay you once you hit a certain number of views for each view. The vast majority of these videos won't get anywhere near the number of views required for that to happen.

Are you going to ever answer any of the other questions I've posed? I'm going to assume no.
 
Patranus said:
What does giving the government tools to prevent the theft of intellectual property have to do with shutting down the internet?

If I take intellectual property, repurpose it as my own, and then profit from that you would think that is ok?
Because that is EXACTLY what happens all day on these websites.

If I make a video of a kid rocking out to Ghostbusters for home use that is fine.
If I post that video on YouTube a company (Google) is now profiting from that stolen intellectual property - the Ghostbusters theme song - and that is wrong.
Click to expand...

You are a dumbass. Posting a video of your kid rocking out to the Ghostbusters theme is completely legal, just like covering a song or taking a photo of someone else's statue out in the street.
 
Patranus said:
Fair use is one thing.
PROFITTING from that "fair use" is another thing.

If for instance I backup a DVD that could be considered by some to be "fair use". Now saw that I go out and sell the original DVD while keeping the backup. Is that still "fair use"? What if I sell the backup? I am not profiting from an act that started out as "fair use".

People act like sites like YouTube are there to promote the free exchange of ideas. That is simply untrue no matter how much Google might try and market it as that. The only purpose of Google is to provide a mechanism to generate traffic to serve advertisements.

Using stolen intellectual property to generate ad impressions is not "fair use".
Click to expand...

Like I said before, why doesn't the DMCA work? Why must we shut down all of youtube when only a small portion of it violates copyright law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top