NothingReally’s Techdirt Profile

name

About NothingReally




NothingReally’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:04pm

    Re: Response to: NothingReally on Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 7:16pm

    You do realize that "fair use" is a very heated area... but what most people consider "fair use" isn't what the law considers "fair use." (What you get for being a flunkie :p)

    Now-a-days "fair use" is synonymous with "subpar piracy" in the publics eye. Where Hollywood would call up for even a 30 second clip of a movie... the public says "fair use" and includes a 3 min clip. 3min becomes 10, which soon becomes the whole movies with only minor changes.

    Now obviously hollywood is selling something... and you are giving it away for free... but there are people profiting from your piracy. The Content Host (youtube).


    See, the non-commercial aspect was drafted on the idea of SMALL SCALE. But now 60 different people can upload 1 3min clip of a movie to create the entire movie. They can each claim "fair use" but the reality is the QUANTITY of distribution and the ease of joining the pieces together were something that only "for profit" corporations were capable of.


    Consider, 15 years ago people's morality was different than it is today... this "pro-piracy anti-government" movement is NEW... it may encompass most of the nation, but it can still be reversed.

    If the internet is akin to the bank having the vault wide open and saying "We trust you to take only what is yours"... people do so for a while, but eventually they get it in their minds that they can take things that aren't theirs and (as the vault magically replenishes) persuade others that what they are doing isn't wrong.

    SOPA simply says "enough is enough, the banks vaults are closed" of course you'll have people who want to get back into the vault... but a shift in morality is what caused the rampant theft... and a shift in morality can bring it back under control.

  • Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:36pm

    Re: Re:

    I don't know where you're posting...
    but 90% of the internet is pro-piracy. It is harder to find people who support copyright enforcement than people who believe that it's bs.

    But take a moment to ask yourself:
    If people have been uploading full episodes so often that content is now being automatically blocked for having any amount of copyrighted material in it... who is at fault.

    The people who continually broke the law,
    or those who tried to enforce it.


    It's BS that YOU have to suffer because piracy is so rampant that bots filter out copyrighted material! I mean, if those bloody pirates would just grow up and stop uploading their Sponge Bob episodes, I could have my YTP uploaded! This is an outrage.


    This has been your friendly troll, showing you the other side of the argument. Goodbye!

  • Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:24pm

    Re: Re:

    Your argument is in part "I've heard people mention morality so many times that I'm sick of it... it has nothing to do with the argument and is used only to confuse people".

    But you REALLY don't understand that MY argument is

    "People don't obey laws that they don't care about"
    That's morality.



    I mean... ugg... Do you not know the definition of morality? (I know, a bit ad hominem but)

    Morality is the artificial constraints placed on a society.
    You are taught that fighting is wrong... but does that make fighting wrong? NO!
    You are taught that infringing copyright is wrong... but this doesn't make piracy wrong.


    I mean, say all you want over how much money is being made off of you... but that is a JUSTIFICATION, not an argument.

    Fighting is wrong, except when you get hit first... then beat the crap out of the kid.


    I really doubt you'll understand, but your argument is also states "My morality is different than 'big corporations' morality and they shouldn't force their morality upon me"

    *Of course, even little corporations get pirated*

    You feel that people shouldn't be taught something is wrong, rather they should... just be all anarchy I guess. I mean, you've even argued that being arrested for breaking the law is bad because it forces people to live in fear. (Of course, a pedophile can also make people live in fear... and their morality is that little kids make good sex toys)



    Sure, I'm obfuscating things now, throwing in my morality while debating how you're arguing about morality. But you have to realize that you ARE arguing about morality.
    You ARE arguing that something is right or wrong because of "personal beliefs".
    So if I argue that it's wrong because of MY "personal beliefs" and you can't offer a single REAL bit of evidence that copying won't hurt anyone... well, I should have every right to do so.

  • Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 7:54pm

    Re:

    Copying is stealing... it has always been stealing (you can't copy a book and mass distribute it, you can't copy a vhs and mass distribute it. These were firmly in the realm of illegal)... and the only people claiming it isn't are those who engage in digital piracy.

    Now when we bring in morality, that's because this is a MORAL ARGUMENT.
    You have no rational basis for saying that copying isn't stealing; but you DO have arguments that people have said before, about how copying a car doesn't hurt the car companies. (Of course, copying money is still illegal [though some people actually argue it isn't]) that if everything is free you wouldn't WANT to pay for anything (piracy is a lost sale as it reduces what people are willing to pay for content.)

    It goes on and on; but they're often easy to poke holes in... so we get down to morality.
    You find no moral imperative towards "big business" and you may feel that you are fighting "injustice."


    So why shouldn't "morality" be thrown in?


    I mean, if you didn't find it morally wrong to rape and kill women... why, we have people who ARE like that.

    Or morally wrong to bring weapons on a plane, even knowing that it was illegal?

    Or morally wrong to disobey the laws of society because you don't feel like it.




    I would like to say one other thing.
    You /are/ the conformist. You're taking the side of the many, the side that you have been TOLD to take. You're believing that the extremes are the truth and that there is no middle ground. You hate outside groups and reject anyone who isn't an exact copy of you...

    I am the RADICAL. I'm the guy who is ignoring the majority to clearly say "I recognize that this is wrong, I may have, or still be, breaking the law. But I am willing to make amends, pay for what I have taken, and hope for a NEW tomorrow"


    See, you've become a fascist :p

  • Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 7:16pm

    (untitled comment)

    Okay, this is Bupkis.

    People ARE uneducated and they CAN be forced to realize that Infringement is infringement.

    Let's start with YouTube.
    Now, someone may realize that "they're not suppose to" dub in a copyrighted song and upload it. But they don't realize that it is "morally wrong".
    In fact, people have made EXTENSIVE arguments that they OWN the song once they buy the CD. They've argued that they're promoting the artist (even if they don't reference said artist). They argue that a copy never hurt anyone.

    What they never argue is whether it is right or wrong. (Though now I'm seeing arguments saying that if YouTube doesn't have all this pirated material on it that they'll take down the government.)


    Let's take a look at another example:
    A kid at school is "getting high" and offers you some drugs, do you
    A) Remember that your parents told you that drugs are wrong
    B) Give into peer pressure

    If you chose A, you were lying! B is an extreme problem to parents because of how influential the opinions of other people can be on your own.

    And another argument that pops up is "I bet you're pirating something right now." Piracy has gotten to the point where open discussion over what you're currently stealing is considered normal. People act like it's "the good fight" and that they're rebels.


    So this whole fascist movement going on, where people are no longer thinking about the MORALITY of their actions, but going on the fervent belief that what they're doing is the norm... I mean, there are many subcultures devoted to piracy, and these are influencing how other people think.



    So we can't destroy these subcultures, we can't stop peer pressure... but we can remove the "taboo" around it... and actually (correctly) point at sites like thepiratebay and say "You exist solely to promote piracy and you and your users will be punished".
    We can ENFORCE the beliefs we're talking about. We can MOLD the minds of others.

    A notice saying "Your attempt to access "thepiratebay" has been logged" would drive MANY people away from piracy.

    CONSEQUENCES, previously they never existed.


    What people need to realize is that this isn't a RATIONAL argument, people who advocate piracy do so very poorly. It's a MORAL argument, and morality is harder to address.

  • Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 6:50pm

    Final Thoughts

    http://www.itif.org/files/2011-pipa-sopa-respond-critics.pdf

    Really does well in addressing many of the falsities that have arose.

    There is some prejudice mentioned about previous groups (something that really shouldn't be in the paper), and a bit of an "idealist" with how people will finally admit that Piracy IS stealing, and a copy is stealing.

    He did ignore "User Content Sites" (something I decree should be held to filter their user's content "Because the technology exists to do so and you're obviously profiting from it") and the delemmia surrounding hosting sites.

    In particular, I know that a hosting server has a child pornography webpage.
    I know that I reported said site to the authorities, that the site was removed.
    And I know that the same site was put back up under the same hosting company and a different subdomain.

    Why shouldn't hosting companies be responsible for the content their users upload? YouTube filters for child pornography on every video uploaded; so why some hosting company can't be bothered to do so... and why they can't be held responsible for not caring... well...


    My position is, websites should monitor themselves (the technology exists... yadda yadda) and that self-policing is the best way to prevent the GOVERNMENT from having to intervene.
    If all the people placing advertisements, if paypal, google, if ANYONE had said once "You know, this is wrong. We Know this is wrong. The MONEY ISN'T WORTH IT" then we would not be here today.
    But because people not only ignore the fact that it's wrong, but INSIST that it's the way of the future, and that the government can't do anything to stop them. What do you think is going to happen?

  • Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 6:11pm

    Re:

    Reading both the articles but a few things to note first.

    A) The guy complaining is a LAW teacher, and the paper is law based.

    B) So far, the paper is saying "The government is too stupid to regulate the internet"
    Saying the DNS blocks on a proxy can be overridden by having "1superproxy", "2superproxy" and that such behaviour would be noticed by the people before the government. (Or that the government wouldn't catch on and from hence on check for such antics).

    Citing the links to alternative proxies on the proxy home page (that the government AGAIN won't block because they're stupid).

    C) This is a really informal study.
    They state that all they really did was use google's public data (as well as data that VPN's advertised) to derive a conclusion.

    But what is worse is that they use EXTREMELY small numbers. the top 180 proxies / vpn's. (and even admitted that they knew of, but did not include, foreign VPNs)

    D) I don't know what the guy's problem is... but the study is too flimsy to concretely claim as much as he did.
    The Study REALLY IS just using google-analytics to make GUESSES.


    The government is targeting torrent trackers as well as torrent search engines.
    So let's say you use a webproxy to get the torrent... well, the tracker doesn't work.
    So you moan on forums and pro-piracy people tell you to use a VPN.
    Well, ISPs will notice that you're drawing a large amount of encrypted traffic.
    Nothing is wrong with having 5gb of encrypted traffic... but it means that the VPN will be pressured to disclose what you were doing.

    See, if we establish a level of co-operation (and have other companies bulling giants like google into submission). And we act quick and decisively, then while it would take 5 days to take down a server... it'll take LONGER to find a new alternative (remember, search engines being filtered as well).

    And if other countries learn that the web giants aren't as powerful as they act. Then they'll likely want to improve their economy and also start blocking illegal web-traffic.


    So then the question that remains is, can the web not be filtered... or is it that the co-operation needed to enact such filters is lacking?

  • Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 5:09pm

    Re:

    *directed at TtfnJohn*
    It's this sort of thing when Non-HACKERS get involved in nerdy things... but are so "hip" that they ACT like they know what Hackers think.

    And even the "hackers" aren't nerds as the vast majority of them don't even know how to program. These are people who read how other people "hack" and do what others have done.

    People talking about how easy it'll be to bypass the filters BEFORE they've even been implemented are NOT hackers. They're typical internet trolls who want to pretend like they're in the crowd.


    It's a lengthy abstract, but the abstract does touch many of the proper points (Such as how engineers who say "break / cause problems" do not mean the catastrophic destruction that they're often "translated" into saying.

    What they are really saying is that it wasn't designed to accommodated this... and they'd rather the government not make them change it.



    http://www.itif.org/people/daniel-castro

    He sounds like a "Translate Engineering into Laymen" type person (real Hackers and Engineers have excessive difficulty explaining these concepts... and that such a position is typically necessary)

  • Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 3:27pm

    Re:

    I am.

    Look, I can "read between the lines" and know enough to say that the majority of those AGAINST SOPA have something to lose other than Freedom of Speech.

    Hosting sites are obviously concerned about being shut down for not checking if their consumers are distributing child pornography / illegal content.

    The "founders of the internet" is preposterous; Appeal to Authority -__-. Those working on the DNSSEC do have a point, but they aren't concerned in the slightest over security... that's just a layman's smoke screen.

    What they ARE concerned about is how much work they'll have to do to accommodate what the government wants to do.


    Just take a second to think here:
    DNS Spoofing is more likely to occur over "unsecure connections", open wifi, tunneling, or anything where a middleman is involved.

    Now the ISP's can be seen as a middle man... but they aren't going to redirect you. Rather, they're going to say "okay, this DNS entry is illegal... so we won't forward the request and send back a 404 error."

    In fact, since the ISPs are the final stop... internet securities don't really apply. Your ISP is a bit like a proxy... and if a proxy modifies the page content then the internet hasn't been broken.



    As far as the rest of the nonsense... about censorship (as if censoring copyrighted material is illegal), about how 1 illegal item means you can shut a page down (it doesn't... but if you don't take preventative measures and those items keep growing... well... that really is YOUR fault as a CONTENT HOST.)

    I mean, saying that Youtube shouldn't be responsible for the piracy that occurs is like saying that a movie theater shouldn't be responsible for playing downloaded movies (i.e. not paying licensing fees).

    YouTube makes MONEY (somehow) from people using it's service for illegal content.... and that is what this is about.

    Unless YouTube were to actually TRY to filter copyrighted material (which they said they don't want to even though they could) they're intentionally distributing it and using the DMCA as a cover.