Wikipedia blackout

Evo

But it's not "censorship".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

jhae2.718

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:

Number Nine

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

No, it would be illegal, and removing illegal activities is not censorship.

Number Nine

If I were to outlaw Christianity, would that mean that my silencing any mention of God would not constitute censorship?

Evo

And this has absolutely nothing to do with protecting online property rights, so you posted it why? It has nothing to do with the topic.

jhae2.718

Going along a different line, what would the removal of Tor, an anonymity network originally developed by the US Naval Research Laboratory to avoid Internet censorship, under SOPA/PIPA be considered? What happens when a company makes an infringement claim against a researcher to prevent a security vulnerability or other unflattering revelation, as was done under DMCA?

I'd like to get away from the argument over the semantics of censorship and back to SOPA*. The practical danger in these bills is the vague language open to interpretation. Having poorly defined terminology gives a lot of leeway to those claiming copyright infringement.


*This thread seems to have moved from the titular Wikipedia blackout to a general discussion of SOPA/PIPA. Perhaps we should make this the P&WA SOPA thread?

Jack21222

Yes, it is censorship. It is illegal for ABC, CBS, or NBC to broadcast the word "f**k" during daylight hours. Those words are censored (in other words, those illegal activities are removed). That is censorship.

SOPA and PIPA would censor entire websites for the action of its users.

To give you a more concrete example, if this law passes, PF might need to delete its youtube thread in general discussion. If a user posts a youtube video that is has a copyright violation (or is even accused of a copyright violation), PF could be shut down.

Do you feel that Greg should be responsible for the actions of a PF user? Right now, the current anti-piracy law, DCMA, has a "safe harbor" provision which prevents the owners of websites from being punished for the actions of its users. SOPA and PIPA would remove such protections.

That is why Wikipedia is so against this legislation. They have user-created content, and would now be held personally responsible for the actions of their users.

Evo, you seem to be going out of your way to avoid discussion about these particular bills, and instead are just talking generally about the importance of copyrights. That's not what this thread is about. Most of us agree that copyright violation is a crime, much like speeding is a crime. In fact, I'd argue that speeding is even worse of a crime, because speeding kills people. But, we don't shut down Ford because their Mustang car can far exceed the speed limit. Likewise, we shouldn't punish websites (like PF or Wikipedia) for being a platform which could potentially be used to violate a copyright.

jhae2.718

This itself would be a de facto censorship of everything anyone posted to Physics Forums.

I like Serena

Do most of us agree?
I accepted that as a given, but seeing this thread makes me wonder.

It seems that it is advocated that copyright violation cannot be prevented on the internet (at least in some cases) and that we should not try to.
If this is accepted, copyright infringement, in some cases, would no longer be a crime.

Evo

This has been discussed and decided it is youtube's responsibility to make sure that they meet their obligations to legal copyright. This is why you will often find broken links where youtube has removed the content. We patrol our website for what our member's post and our rules on copyright violations being illegal and not allowed are very clear.

jhae2.718

There is a sizable group on the Internet that will pirate anything. This is also a group that would never buy anything they could not pirate. There's also a group of people who have declared that file sharing is their religion.
The DMCA already accomplishes this to a large degree. SOPA/PIPA extend the rights of copyright holders at the expense of everyone else. It is ridiculous to give a group the power to take down an entire domain for minor copyright infringements. The rights holder can currently issue takedown notices for the material to be removed, and then take further action if this is not complied with. Under SOPA as originally written--and intended--the rights holder would essentially take off and nuke the site from orbit.

As a practical matter, it is impossible to prevent copyright infringement. No matter what blocking techniques or actions are taken, copyright infringers will adapt and move on. The problem rights holders have is that they are reactive. They must respond to what copyright infringers do. They'll never be able to prevent file sharing, unless they either destroy the Internet or Turing-complete computers.

So, the question becomes: do we give up trying to stop infringement to protect the additional (speculative) profits of rights infringers at the expense of the majority of people, who do not share files or infringe copyrights, or do we try alternative measures such as giving people incentives to purchase products?

Government regulation is not the answer here.

jhae2.718

Irrelevant. You would still be linking to copyright infringing materials. Similarly, Google would be responsible for patrolling ever single link they served for copyright infringement. Only ad providers and payment networks have "no duty to monitor" under the bill. See H.R. 3261, Title I, § 102.c.

Jack21222

And if a copyright holder feels Youtube or PF is taking too long to remove a copyright infringement (or even a perceived copyright infringement: See Universal Music Group's takedown of a song made for Megaupload [1]), do you feel that the copyright holder should have the entire website taken offline, with the burden of proof on the website to be reinstated?

Evo

I've spoken of copyrights, and intellectual property rights, which is what the bills are meant to protect. I've posted about the bills. Please post specific examples where I And stop the strawman fallacies.

Evo

This is off topic. And post where I said I agreed with SOPA.

Jack21222

Talking about the implications of SOPA is off topic in a thread about SOPA? But discussing copyrights in general isn't off-topic? Evo, you usually make more sense than this.

EDIT: I never said you agreed with SOPA. To claim that I did is a strawman of your own. I said you were avoiding discussion of the bill. You keep defending the intention of the bill, but the bill goes far beyond its ostensible intentions.