Godammed SDN
Re: Godammed SDN
btw you were also liable for false dmca takedowns, civilally and possibly criminally - it's perjury
Re: Godammed SDN
has anyone actually been charged with perjury for false takedownsadr wrote:btw you were also liable for false dmca takedowns, civilally and possibly criminally - it's perjury
Re: Godammed SDN
idk
i know there's been some fairly famous lawsuits but i've never heard of a perjury charge over it
i know there's been some fairly famous lawsuits but i've never heard of a perjury charge over it
Re: Godammed SDN
so there's no reason to assume that these penalties actually have any teeth behind them for anyone but people who wind up getting legitimate content pulledadr wrote:idk
i know there's been some fairly famous lawsuits but i've never heard of a perjury charge over it
Re: Godammed SDN
yeah some random guy on the internet hasn't personally heard of a case therefore the law is total bullshit
Re: Godammed SDN
if they are already doing it, how will the new bill actually change things? basically all this adds is other ways to put pressure on sites dedicated to this shit, by taking the whole thing down. that's a more blunt tool than things like dmca takedowns; it knocks off the entire site in one goDjinnkitty83 wrote:Because they certainly don't have the money and lawyers to drag that out and break any one of us financially in the process, declaring victory through attrition, I mean that totally hasn't been their MO even before SOPA
if you do that to a big thing, you're screwing yourself. youtube for instance, if it went down google's lawyers will surely counter attack
if you own a little domain you might be vulnerable tho but you'd prolly be vulnerable to dmca abuse anyway...
Not recently; the Obama thread Thanas posted is on page 1, with a lot of people arguing about semantics, whereas the copyright thread is now on page three with a bunch of people talking about how evil it is and how they are personally going to take action to stop it.And while I'm all with TEO bashing, correct me if I'm wrong but the indefinite detention and various war threads have gotten just as much attention as this.
The Obama threatens veto went only two pages as well.
Re: Godammed SDN
i'ma be a bit of a butt here and ask why exactly we should care about whether or not sony gets money when someone uses a song they own in a crappy youtube vid
Re: Godammed SDN
might as well kill yourself frankly
Re: Godammed SDN
because it infringes on our god given right to make AMVsOhma wrote:i'ma be a bit of a butt here and ask why exactly we should care about whether or not sony gets money when someone uses a song they own in a crappy youtube vid
Re: Godammed SDN
Hey adr
What do you think about the classic EULA "you don't own this just a license" thing?
Oh and those recent Xbox Live, PSN and EA TOS changes that say "fuck you can't go to court must use binding arbitration" unless, of course, it's about copyright infringment, then they can take you to court (because I doubt such a thing would ever apply to the end user so it's pretty one-sided IMO).
I'm curious.
What do you think about the classic EULA "you don't own this just a license" thing?
Oh and those recent Xbox Live, PSN and EA TOS changes that say "fuck you can't go to court must use binding arbitration" unless, of course, it's about copyright infringment, then they can take you to court (because I doubt such a thing would ever apply to the end user so it's pretty one-sided IMO).
I'm curious.
Re: Godammed SDN
Pretty sure some not insignificant percentage of posts in those threads go "guyse this is no big deal it will help against the terrists".Djinnkitty83 wrote:And while I'm all with TEO bashing, correct me if I'm wrong but the indefinite detention and various war threads have gotten just as much attention as this.
personally
i think it's kind of funny that it's an outrage that the us government can detain its own citizens indefinitely
but not that it can detain foreigners indefinitely
at least you can kinda sorta rationalise why they should be able to hold their own citizens, cause you know domestic crime and bullshit militarism
but what the fuck gives them the right to touch anyone abroad
and i'm all for giving corporations all the means of the state in the pursuit of more capital and oppression of the masses
it will help bring about
teh revolution
DracuLax - when even Death can't scare the shit out of you
Re: Godammed SDN
Man i love that shit. Guys like Stas want to tear down society but a fucking tonne of people will die over it.
Probably him.
Probably him.
Re: Godammed SDN
it rox. it's a nice way to get around the limitations of copyright lawRogueIce wrote:What do you think about the classic EULA "you don't own this just a license" thing?
of course if you don't like it just don't buy that shit
Re: Godammed SDN
i don't careOhma wrote:i'ma be a bit of a butt here and ask why exactly we should care about whether or not sony gets money when someone uses a song they own in a crappy youtube vid
which is why my give a shit rating on these laws tends to be quite low
-
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:11 pm
Re: Godammed SDN
But according to EULA, you *haven't* bought that shit, even when you paid money for it and got a physical copy from the store.adr wrote:of course if you don't like it just don't buy that shit
Re: Godammed SDN
yea but u kno wat i mean
-
- Posts: 1456
- Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:34 pm
Re: Godammed SDN
so what's worse:
1) people torrenting bad movies
2) the government and corporations having the power to take down an entire website (or censoring it from american internet users) they don't like without even needing to go to court first
i guess it's okay since to get it back up you only have to respond within like 5 days and afford a lawyer than can beat a legal team costing more than your house hired by a group with a bottomless bank account
#richpeopleproblems
1) people torrenting bad movies
2) the government and corporations having the power to take down an entire website (or censoring it from american internet users) they don't like without even needing to go to court first
i guess it's okay since to get it back up you only have to respond within like 5 days and afford a lawyer than can beat a legal team costing more than your house hired by a group with a bottomless bank account
#richpeopleproblems
-
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:11 pm
Re: Godammed SDN
Apparently I don't. Am I wrong for thinking it's a bad thing that a corporation can get away with implicitly assuming someone's signing a contract they cannot read, or even know about, until after they've made a purchase of a product they assumed was a physical object belonging to them... and the only way to fight against this is to have the resources, time and interest available to take on a lengthy and very expensive legal battle against corporate interests...adr wrote:yea but u kno wat i mean
...and that SOPA represents a massive expansion of the power of companies to enforce this after-the-fact-not-really-signing-but-actually-signing-believe-us contract bullshit (which itself is only one small facet of the much larger problem of the copyright bullshit), to the point where they can get sites shut down on the flimsiest of pretenses without legal review, and cannot be stopped because they have the money and time to stamp their feet longer and more loudly in a legal setting should anyone dare to try and drag them to court?
Re: Godammed SDN
eulas are awesome
they are like the opposite of consumer protection laws
they are like the opposite of consumer protection laws
DracuLax - when even Death can't scare the shit out of you
Re: Godammed SDN
If you don't like what a company does, don't give that company your money. If that means going without the latest movies and games and songs...... so be it.Djinnkitty83 wrote:Apparently I don't.
They shouldn't be allowed to fool you though; the eula stuff should be clearly explained.
Re: Godammed SDN
Is this the proper way to respond to Internet debates?
-
- Posts: 1456
- Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:34 pm
Re: Godammed SDN
without even going into the inane bullshit that makes up "vote with your wallet"adr wrote:If you don't like what a company does, don't give that company your money. If that means going without the latest movies and games and songs...... so be it.Djinnkitty83 wrote:Apparently I don't.
They shouldn't be allowed to fool you though; the eula stuff should be clearly explained.
how will any of this help you when your websites are shut down because someone associated with the occupy movement posts on one of your boards
Re: Godammed SDN
occupy movements aren't dedicated to copyright infringement, so this bill does not affect them
- weemadando
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:36 am
Re: Godammed SDN
Those TOS conditions are invalid. When they started getting rolled out after the PSN hack (Sony started trying to cover their arses and minimise potential costs in the future) every lawyer that the nerd press talked to said stuff along the lines of "yeah, those conditions would never hold up."RogueIce wrote:Hey adr
What do you think about the classic EULA "you don't own this just a license" thing?
Oh and those recent Xbox Live, PSN and EA TOS changes that say "fuck you can't go to court must use binding arbitration" unless, of course, it's about copyright infringment, then they can take you to court (because I doubt such a thing would ever apply to the end user so it's pretty one-sided IMO).
I'm curious.
Not to mention the various precedents around the place where judges have gone: "what, you expect a lay person to read, comprehend and agree to a legal document longer and more complicated than the entirety of a mortgage and house purchase just so they can use some software that sells for a few hundred at most? EULAs invalid. Thank you."