New Testingstan

btw you were also liable for false dmca takedowns, civilally and possibly criminally - it's perjury

adr wrote:btw you were also liable for false dmca takedowns, civilally and possibly criminally - it's perjury

has anyone actually been charged with perjury for false takedowns

idk

i know there's been some fairly famous lawsuits but i've never heard of a perjury charge over it

adr wrote:idk

i know there's been some fairly famous lawsuits but i've never heard of a perjury charge over it

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 pulled

yeah some random guy on the internet hasn't personally heard of a case therefore the law is total bullshit

Djinnkitty83 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 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 go

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...

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.

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.

The Obama threatens veto went only two pages as well.

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

fucking shit now i can't stop browsing reddit's music section

might as well kill yourself frankly

Ohma 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

because it infringes on our god given right to make AMVs

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.

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.

Pretty sure some not insignificant percentage of posts in those threads go "guyse this is no big deal it will help against the terrists".

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

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.

RogueIce wrote:What do you think about the classic EULA "you don't own this just a license" thing?

it rox. it's a nice way to get around the limitations of copyright law

of course if you don't like it just don't buy that shit

Ohma 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

i don't care

which is why my give a shit rating on these laws tends to be quite low

adr wrote:of course if you don't like it just don't buy that shit

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.

yea but u kno wat i mean

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

adr wrote:yea but u kno wat i mean

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...

...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?

eulas are awesome

they are like the opposite of consumer protection laws

Djinnkitty83 wrote:Apparently I don't.

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.

They shouldn't be allowed to fool you though; the eula stuff should be clearly explained.

Is this the proper way to respond to Internet debates?

adr wrote:

Djinnkitty83 wrote:Apparently I don't.

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.

They shouldn't be allowed to fool you though; the eula stuff should be clearly explained.

without even going into the inane bullshit that makes up "vote with your wallet"

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

occupy movements aren't dedicated to copyright infringement, so this bill does not affect them

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.

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."

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."