Register to reply

Wikipedia blackout

by Hurkyl
Tags: blackout, wikipedia
Share this thread:
Pythagorean
#55
Jan17-12, 06:09 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,262
Quote Quote by jhae2.718 View Post
This is impossible.
Well... not "give up" impossible. "Seal airtight" is certainly impossible, but the point is really just to keep profit margins up, so the efforts do actually have good results in this regard... if the programmers and social engineers are clever enough in the design of the product.

SOPA is more a of "Og get bigger hammer" solution.
jhae2.718
#56
Jan17-12, 06:12 PM
PF Gold
jhae2.718's Avatar
P: 1,153
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
To those that say it's censoring the internet, nonsense. Since when is stopping cybercrime censorship?
If we go by the original bill, the intent of the DNS filtering provisions was to block copyright infringing sites. Once the capability of censoring sites exists, all bets are off. It's not like ICE has taken down the wrong site before, or, analogously, the PATRIOT Act was used only against terrorists, is it?
Evo
#57
Jan17-12, 06:12 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,423
Quote Quote by jhae2.718 View Post
This is impossible.
That doesn't mean that proper precautions developed by people that understand what they're doing (not politicians, IMO), shouldn't be developed. There will always be criminals, but that doesn't mean that ways to hinder them shouldn't be implemented.
jhae2.718
#58
Jan17-12, 06:14 PM
PF Gold
jhae2.718's Avatar
P: 1,153
Quote Quote by Pythagorean View Post
Well... not "give up" impossible. "Seal airtight" is certainly impossible, but the point is really just to keep profit margins up, so the efforts do actually have good results in this regard... if the programmers and social engineers are clever enough in the design of the product.

SOPA is more a of "Og get bigger hammer" solution.
Agreed. You can make it hard for the average person to pirate something, but as long as debuggers are legal and there are people skilled at disassembly it can be done.
jhae2.718
#59
Jan17-12, 06:18 PM
PF Gold
jhae2.718's Avatar
P: 1,153
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
That doesn't mean that proper precautions developed by people that understand what they're doing (not politicians, IMO), shouldn't be developed. There will always be criminals, but that doesn't mean that ways to hinder them shouldn't be implemented.
Neither SOPA nor PIPA, or, for that matter, DMCA fall into this category. DMCA is far better than the former, and even it is more harmful than good. Off the top of my head, one prominent example is it's use by companies to prevent security researchers from presenting their results at conferences.

Rather than use the nuclear option, it's far better to give incentives not to pirate. (And being shot at dawn does not count as an incentive, MPAA/RIAA. ) Like I said before, iTunes and Steam are great examples of this.

Ultimately, what we have is a battle between the content industry and tech/internet companies over what the future of content distribution is.

Edit: Regardless of your opinion, this is an interesting piece: Lockdown
Evo
#60
Jan17-12, 06:21 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,423
Quote Quote by jhae2.718 View Post
Neither SOPA nor PIPA, or, for that matter, DMCA fall into this category. DMCA is far better than the former, and even it is more harmful than good. Off the top of my head, one prominent example is it's use by companies to prevent security researchers from presenting their results at conferences.

Rather than use the nuclear option, it's far better to give incentives not to pirate. (And being shot at down does not count as an incentive, MPAA/RIAA. ) Like I said before, iTunes and Steam are great examples of this.

Ultimately, what we have is a battle between the content industry and tech/internet companies over what the future of content distribution is.
Agree. This is not something that will be solved by politics, which is something I'm glad to see the Whitehouse seems to understand. Finally common sense seems to be prevailing.
Pythagorean
#61
Jan17-12, 06:21 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,262
Quote Quote by jhae2.718 View Post
Agreed. You can make it hard for the average person to pirate something, but as long as debuggers are legal and there are people skilled at disassembly it can be done.
More importantly, you can make a product that, even if it gets debugged, will not bring the typical customer any satisfaction. I.e., a game the requires communication with the company servers.

Or you can make the customer profiling system more personal so that registration for the product is more controlled.
jhae2.718
#62
Jan17-12, 06:37 PM
PF Gold
jhae2.718's Avatar
P: 1,153
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
This is not something that will be solved by politics, which is something I'm glad to see the Whitehouse seems to understand. Finally common sense seems to be prevailing.
I'd go further and say that it's not something that you're going to solve by regulation. It's going to be up to the affected companies to take steps on their own to deincentivize piracy. Based on their track records, I don't think this will happen. (The RIAA especially has a larger problem, the ability of the Internet to effectively make the cost for an artist to start out and sell music nil. The internet has made them obsolete, and they're in a battle for relevance and survival.)

The fact of the matter is that there is always going to be piracy occurring, and there's nothing short of 1984-style monitoring of everyone or the destruction of the general purpose computer* that can completely stop it. You can take steps to reduce piracy, especially among nontechnical people, but technically minded people will always find a workaround. Here's a quote from the piece I linked to in the post above:
Quote Quote by Cory Doctorow
By 1996, it became clear to everyone in the halls of power that there was something important about to happen. We were about to have an information economy, whatever the Hell that was. They assumed it meant an economy where we bought and sold information. Information technology improves efficiency, so imagine the markets that an information economy would have! You could buy a book for a day, you could sell the right to watch the movie for a Euro, and then you could rent out the pause button for a penny per second. You could sell movies for one price in one country, at another price in another, and so on. The fantasies of those days were like a boring science fiction adaptation of the Old Testament Book of Numbers, a tedious enumeration of every permutation of things people do with information—and what might be charged for each.

Unfortunately for them, none of this would be possible unless they could control how people use their computers and the files we transfer to them. After all, it was easy to talk about selling someone a tune to download to their MP3 player, but not so easy to talk about the the right to move music from the player to another device. But how the Hell could you stop that once you'd given them the file? In order to do so, you needed to figure out how to stop computers from running certain programs and inspecting certain files and processes. For example, you could encrypt the file, and then require the user to run a program that only unlocked the file under certain circumstances.

But, as they say on the Internet, now you have two problems.

You must now also stop the user from saving the file while it's unencrypted—which must happen eventually— and you must stop the user from figuring out where the unlocking program stores its keys, enabling them to permanently decrypt the media and ditch the stupid player app entirely.

Now you have three problems: you must stop the users who figure out how to decrypt from sharing it with other users. Now you've got four problems, because you must stop the users who figure out how to extract secrets from unlocking programs from telling other users how to do it too. And now you've got five problems, because you must stop users who figure out how to extract these secrets from telling other users what the secrets were!

That's a lot of problems. But by 1996, we had a solution. We had the WIPO Copyright Treaty, passed by the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization. This created laws that made it illegal to extract secrets from unlocking programs, and it created laws that made it illegal to extract media (such as songs and movies) from the unlocking programs while they were running. It created laws that made it illegal to tell people how to extract secrets from unlocking programs, and it created laws that made it illegal to host copyrighted works or the secrets. It also established a handy streamlined process that let you remove stuff from the Internet without having to screw around with lawyers, and judges, and all that crap.

And with that, illegal copying ended forever, the information economy blossomed into a beautiful flower that brought prosperity to the whole wide world; as they say on the aircraft carriers, “Mission Accomplished".
*We may end up here if Xboxes and iPads and other locked-down devices replace the desktop/laptop as the computational devices for most people.
MarcoD
#63
Jan17-12, 07:33 PM
P: 98
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
To those that say it's censoring the internet, nonsense.
The thing is that since all tech savvy people know that since piracy can't be stopped, and certainly not in this manner, they conclude that it is about censorship.

What are they going to ban? MSM, smartphones, counterstrike XVIII? Any social media, and any sufficiently advanced software in the future, is going to provide what they now aim to ban. Heck, since World of Warcraft is supposed to be a 'social' experience, I don't even know why they didn't build profiles and file sharing right in.

It is not going to work unless they'll reduce the whole Internet to 1984-ish security and censorship and everyone knows it.
Polymathiah
#64
Jan17-12, 07:45 PM
P: 7
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Nonsense. It's depriving the owner of the sale of his product.
He is not deprived of this. He can still attempt to sell it, but given that it is infinitely reproducible, the price quickly goes to 0. Value is in the mind of the valuer, and prices reflect this. Saying that you have a right to the value in a good is tantamount to saying you have a right to control someone else's independent valuations (since the value exists only in the mind). The point being that if I pirate something, it is simply the act of rearranging particles on a hard drive which I own.

Analogy: A person moves in next door to your house. He decides to paint his house with spray cans in a graffiti fashion. This lowers the cost of your house. Should you be able to pass a law stating that he must repaint his house because he deprived you of the money which was lost when your property decreased?

Example question: I have a 3D copier which can infinitely reproduce any physical object out of particles which I own. Would it be right to forbid my use of this machine to eliminate scarcity of food, clothing, and houses just to maintain the cost of current food, clothing, and houses?

This view of copyright/patent enforcement is much like the Luddite fallacy. We have the technology to infinitely reproduce information, but would outlaw it as a Luddite would outlaw mechanized looms in order to preserve the current structure of the economy, rather than letting it shift to better things.
Evo
#65
Jan17-12, 07:48 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,423
Quote Quote by MarcoD View Post
It is not going to work unless they'll reduce the whole Internet to 1984-ish security and censorship and everyone knows it.
Protecting property rights, even if it's an ill conceived bill by politicians that don't understand, is not censorship.
jhae2.718
#66
Jan17-12, 07:58 PM
PF Gold
jhae2.718's Avatar
P: 1,153
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Protecting property rights, even if it's an ill conceived bill by politicians that don't understand, is not censorship.
It is if it includes provisions for removing entire sites. The DMCA had a takedown provision for copyright infringing material. SOPA/PIPA as originally written do not take down the infringing material--they simply suspend access to the entire site.
MarcoD
#67
Jan17-12, 08:00 PM
P: 98
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Protecting property rights, even if it's an ill conceived bill by politicians that don't understand, is not censorship.
Property is not property anymore unless you can own or protect it. Do I own the air that I breath? No, I don't since nobody has figured out a manner of owning or declaring air property. If the Internet will reduce information, forms of bits, to air -which some may argue it already has,- it ceases to be be property in practical terms which will mean that, at some point in time, it will cease to be property in judicial terms.

(Mind you, Evo, I agree on property rights. It's just that I think the Internet pushes us into an inevatible course on a redefinition of what digital property constitutes.)
jhae2.718
#68
Jan17-12, 08:09 PM
PF Gold
jhae2.718's Avatar
P: 1,153
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Protecting property rights, even if it's an ill conceived bill by politicians that don't understand, is not censorship.
I'm going to be pedantic again and make the distinction that we are discussing intellectual property rights.
Evo
#69
Jan17-12, 08:18 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,423
Quote Quote by jhae2.718 View Post
It is if it includes provisions for removing entire sites. The DMCA had a takedown provision for copyright infringing material. SOPA/PIPA as originally written do not take down the infringing material--they simply suspend access to the entire site.
But it's not "censorship".

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
jhae2.718
#70
Jan17-12, 08:30 PM
PF Gold
jhae2.718's Avatar
P: 1,153
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
But it's not "censorship".
Suppose I posted how to remove copy protection of DVDs to make backup copies, which is technically copyright infringement. If that were removed according to SOPA/PIPA (under anti-circumvention proceedings) wouldn't that be:
Quote Quote by Wikipedia
...suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.
Number Nine
#71
Jan17-12, 08:32 PM
P: 772
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
But it's not "censorship".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
A great deal of the criticism surrounds the fact that entire websites can be taken offline before the owners have an opportunity to repeal, and the burden of proof rests largely on them. The fear is, one, that this makes it trivially easy for copyright holders to step beyond the bounds of their copyright and suppress mention of their work arbitrarily, and two, that the system can be easily exploited by anyone to take any website off the air simply by signing up and posting a copyrighted image.

It provides a legal mechanism for private citizens and corporate entities to engage in censorship.
Evo
#72
Jan17-12, 08:33 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,423
Quote Quote by jhae2.718 View Post
Suppose I posted how to remove copy protection of DVDs to make backup copies, which is technically copyright infringement. If that were removed according to SOPA/PIPA (under anti-circumvention proceedings) wouldn't that be:
No, it would be illegal, and removing illegal activities is not censorship.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Interferometer BlackOut General Physics 8
Blackout Bomb Current Events 22
Winter blackout General Discussion 9