VaporTrail Posted December 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 What about sites with user-generated content? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 What about sites with user-generated content? Sites that exist to distribute content and enrich themselves from traffic driven from the users have a responsibility to operate within the laws. Sites=business Virtual business=physical business A physical business is not allowed to enable distribution of stolen/trademark/patented/IP protected goods regardless of who provides the goods so why should a virtual business? The US has a responsibility to enforce laws...... Virtual businesses should not be protected from laws A site that allows "user" content is the same as providing a address for people fencing stolen property or just showing off products they dont own.... The laws should apply to the web, the companies against SOPA somehow feel above the law for some made up reasons..... The "internet" is not a public right but a collection of systems owned by for profit companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 I'm talking about people taking home videos while a song is playing in the background. Youtube has cracked down on that in the past, if this passes it's only going to get more heavily enforced. THAT is a load of bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 probably can't even have a video singing "happy birthday" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 I'm sorry sev. The internet has always been a bastion of free speech. I will not stand for ANY attempts to limit it (except in the cases of child porn). I find it disgusting that the assholes responsible for the housing bubble continue to live lavish lives, and our government is more concerned with IP theft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Odd.... Neither Bush (H or W) nor Reagan ever wanted to control the internet and media airwaves. Bill Clinton didn't, and neither did the president at that time (Higgardly)... But this Constitution violating, violent revolution supporting ("You are why I ran for president"), marxist president and his minions do. Isn't that odd? Really, really, really ODD ? Like totally supporting the filth and crime of the fleabitten occupiers... and hating the Tea Party? Obamao and Co. hate dissent. You are allowed to agree with them - that's free speech. Disagree, and even the U.S. Supreme Court won't escape their wrath. Okay - Spiro Agnew did - he was a moron - and the left freaked out and screamed about it everywhere in our country - now? A lot of the left would be happy. Their side would rule. You can agree - and you can't disagree. Censorship always works like that. We aren't talking about what the definition of "decent" is - we're talking about working towards total political control to enable a revolution/transformation to an all powerful, stay in power marxist style gov. No wonder that they embrace Assad of Syria and Chavez of Venzuela, and Castro, they want that kind of control. After all, the lefties are so-o-o-o-o right about everything.... "it's right for the people".... them people. We're in big, big trouble. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 I'm sorry sev. The internet has always been a bastion of free speech. I will not stand for ANY attempts to limit it (except in the cases of child porn). I find it disgusting that the assholes responsible for the housing bubble continue to live lavish lives, and our government is more concerned with IP theft. Um no, the "internet" has not always been about free speech....... Tim Berners Lee while he was working for Cern made a better way to transmit data by creating HTML. The "internet" is a amalgamation of technologies not a unified system, use of the VAST multitudes of technologies client side, server side, languages, transport protocols etc etc has been rapidly evolving for all kinds of uses. The "internet" or the term you are using to define what you think the "internet" actually is does not support any moral/constitutional idea or have any driving axiom what so ever. There are millions of technologist adding to the amalgamation of technologies on a daily basis for all kinds of purposes. Vapor your problem is that you have a concept that is important to you and those who profit from theft are using that as a anchor point for PR to protect their income stream. The "government" is being lobbied by the Media and Communications industries because both have COST burdens without the upside (Google and companies stock value) that enrich themselves by providing safe harbor for illegal communication.... Every NFL game in the beginning has that announcement about illegal rebroadcast...... the "internet" is all about BROADCAST or Transport of data/communications.......... Cal I have no idea what you are talking about..... This is truly a issue that does not see democrat or republican take a look at who is being lobbied (BOTH SIDES) This has nothing really to do with the White House right now. Vapor The "internet" does not have a reason of being nor a guiding principle and it does not even really have one underlying technology. Your concepts are not really a part of the system of communications that is powered by for profit industries.... we are all just participants empowered by vast multitudes of ever evolving technologies. There are going to be inter state commerce and communications rules and broadcast is a part of those limitations...... Current technologies currently enable broadcast of content which means they will fall under purview of the government for all kinds of reasons. IP protection is KEY to economic innovation and growth, without everyone would be afraid to create new business or innovate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted December 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 IP protection is KEY to economic innovation and growth, without everyone would be afraid to create new business or innovate. Yeah, IP theft explains why we're in the proverbial economic shitter. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 Yeah, IP theft explains why we're in the proverbial economic shitter. Please. Good point VT, some people go to college and lose all aspects of common sense. I'm glad to see your keeping it sane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 Yeah, IP theft explains why we're in the proverbial economic shitter. Please. first, I was not making an argument of our current macro economic state and its correlation to IP theft.... To that point, IP protections meaning laws are the cornerstone of innovation and economic growth. From Electricity to Mass production to any "business" protecting those business investments is in fact the cornerstone of our economic system. The patent and civil/business law system is the regulatory controls that keeps the system moving forward. Technology and automation plus cost of manufacturing is one of the main drivers why the "middle" class or low to semi skilled jobs have disappeared or been relocated out of country. Try not to link to totally different topics as my positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted December 5, 2011 Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Vapor, for every frivolous lawsuit that has little to no merit, there are literally hundreds of patents from drugs, to manufacturing, etc etc that have in fact protected innovations. As for your example of COD... well the LICENSED use of the Unreal engine as the core technology is an example of proper use.... Those other copy cats and competitors all license something like the Unreal engine or create their own. Everything from the Xbox 360, Wii, game engines, playstation 3 etc etc all have multiple licenses and patents protecting and allowing the proper use for commercialization. IP is in fact the very basis of their price points, competitive advantages, business models and strategic partnerships. Vapor I do understand your opinion, I do personally agree.... however the situation has a business/legal nature I cant ignore just because my preferences and beliefs support an outcome I just dont think is fair to Business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted December 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2011 Vapor, for every frivolous lawsuit that has little to no merit, there are literally hundreds of patents from drugs, to manufacturing, etc etc that have in fact protected innovations. As for your example of COD... well the LICENSED use of the Unreal engine as the core technology is an example of proper use.... Those other copy cats and competitors all license something like the Unreal engine or create their own. Everything from the Xbox 360, Wii, game engines, playstation 3 etc etc all have multiple licenses and patents protecting and allowing the proper use for commercialization. IP is in fact the very basis of their price points, competitive advantages, business models and strategic partnerships. Vapor I do understand your opinion, I do personally agree.... however the situation has a business/legal nature I cant ignore just because my preferences and beliefs support an outcome I just dont think is fair to Business. Patents on drugs... Oh boy, you're opening up a can of worms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Molecular_Pathology,_et_al._v._United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office,_et_al. tl;dr Company files a patent for technique to isolate a gene associated with breast cancer, ACLU challenges it, SCOTUS sides with company. If you want to do research on this gene, you need this company's permission. FUCK EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS. You do NOT stifle scientific research in the name of profits, you fucking whore of a company. I'll admit, I'm pretty passionate about vidya games, but this? This!?!? This is horseshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 Yes I am with you about patenting genes.... I dont think you patent the code of life. Like I stated earlier, I personally enjoy the freedoms the internet has..... I also agree that corporate greed and patenting DNA is going WAY to far. Vapor, I was in a colorful disagreement today with a Lobbyist/Lawyer that deals with Net Neutrality..... One of my jobs is to put him out of business in representing BS legislation to solve a problem that business methodology can solve. I really do deal a lot with this issue and I do agree with you about the importance of the ecosystem. I temper that hardcore support with my belief that IP protections are necessary for a healthy ecosystem to thrive. The answer is not one sided and lies in the middle with common sense compromise that is based on mutually beneficial long term outcomes for all parties involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted December 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 Yeah, excellent discussion. You've definitely highlighted flaws in my arguments where the best I can come up with is, "Well, this is the way it has been." I just feel like the internet is the last bastion of truly free speech, and I'd hate to see the powers that be change it. I mean, for all the horseshit 4chan and anon come up with, they also helped to allow communications for protestors in the middle east when the governments shut down the internet. I mean, I don't freak out because it happens "over there," but I've taken part in some Occupy protests, and the fact that it could happen here just scares the shit out of me. I just think that the wild west should remain wild, and it looks like that's not the way it's going to be, so I'll probably fight it all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.