SOPA Blackout Protest

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ApK

OK, then. Can we just ask for a reduction of whining about how The Man is keeping us down and how corrupt every single politician is, and instead try to be a bit more constructive?

He is, they are; so toss 'em all out

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

He is, they are; so toss 'em all out

Get a haircut, hippy.

[Sil_liS]

Other blackout sites:
http://www.wired.com/
http://www.generalforum.com/blackout.html

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Surely what matters is a site's response to the posting of such material? If the site has an active policy of encouraging users to report infringing material (as Wiki does - never used Twitter, so I can't comment on that), then I suspect that it's unlikely to fall foul of the law.

That's all nice on paper... in practice users aren't going to report things very often, unless they are explicit in nature, and even when they do it takes considerable man power to verify each and every complaint.

Originally Posted by HarryT

The example posted, though, was film clips and covers of popular songs. Both of those are very likely to be infringing. A film clip COULD be fair use if it's being used for purposes of academic criticism, for example, but that seems pretty unlikely on YouTube.

It doesn't matter if something actually infringes copyright law. The media corporations have shown that they can and will abuse any power given to them. And that's the biggest problem with these bills: it gives too much power to the corporations. Copyright law is, at least in the United States, supposed to balance the rights of the copyright holder with the rights of the general public. Yet in recent years it has shifted far too much to the former.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And here's what the Chief Executive of Twitter, Dick Costolo said about it:



I completely agree with Mr. Costolo.

Wikipedia is not a business. It's a non-profit.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Wikipedia is not a business. It's a non-profit.

I trust you've informed Mr Costolo of his error?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Wikipedia is not a business. It's a non-profit.

That's like saying an apple is not a fruit, it's red.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Dylrob

That's all nice on paper... in practice users aren't going to report things very often, unless they are explicit in nature, and even when they do it takes considerable man power to verify each and every complaint.

If MR's experience is anything to go by, people are very vigilant when they know that a policy is there for everyone's benefit. If someone uploads something dodgy here, you can guarantee that half a dozen people will have reported it within 10 minutes.

[luqmaninbmore]

Also, what wikipedia is doing is far from foolish. My students are now motivated to communicate their displeasure to their elected representatives, the contact information for whom can be accessed from the black out page. I assume that this is true of many other people as well. It could prove to be rather effective in blocking the bill.

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nothing at all. It's for the American people to decide, through their representatives, whether this is what they want to happen. If they decide that such is their collective wish, then personally I think they would be misguided, but it's not my decision to make.

If not for these attempts to raise awareness, the American people would not have had much say in the matter. Corporate lobbyists tried to get these laws rush through congress, while staying under the radar.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by ApK

That's like saying an apple is not a fruit, it's red.

Care to elaborate? If main (legal) purpose of an organization is not to generate profits, I think it stretches the definition of 'business' to characterize it as such.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Care to elaborate? If main (legal) purpose of an organization is not to generate profits, I think it stretches the definition of 'business' to characterize it as such.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/business


And even from HERE:

NOTE: Many people would argue that a nonprofit organization is also a business organization, if they believe that a business is an organization that provides value to consumers and gets suitable value in return.
[. . .]
Nonprofit Organizations

(The following information, in large part, was developed by Putnam Barber, President of the Evergreen State Society in Seattle, Washington)
A nonprofit organization exists to provide a particular service to the community. The word "nonprofit" refers to a type of business -- one which is organized under rules that forbid the distribution of profits to owners. "Profit" in this context is a relatively technical accounting term, related to but not identical with the notion of a surplus of revenues over expenditures.
Most nonprofits businesses are organized into corporations. Most corporations are formed under the corporations laws of a particular state. Every state has provisions for forming nonprofit corporations; some permit other forms, such as unincorporated associations, trusts, etc., which may operate as nonprofit businesses on slightly (but sometimes importantly) different terms.

If you mean for-profit vs. non-profit, then say so. Don't arbitrarily restrict commonly understood terms for no purpose other than starting an argument.
Moving on...?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ApK

Get a haircut, hippy.

Done. Rather stylish, wouldn't you say?

Spoiler:

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If MR's experience is anything to go by, people are very vigilant when they know that a policy is there for everyone's benefit. If someone uploads something dodgy here, you can guarantee that half a dozen people will have reported it within 10 minutes.

I pointed out that your avatar is dodgy and you did nothing about it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I pointed out that your avatar is dodgy and you did nothing about it.

Don't start that nonsense again, please.