Coica,will It Take Down Newgrounds?

[AccountableMasses]

Internet Censorship and Copyright Bill
Just read about this..
Pretty much if passed almost everything online will be turned into a chinese-stled censored internet..

That includes youtube medifire, pretty much anything you could think of, will be shut down.

Does newgrounds fit in this category and if so, how would it affect the site?

[poxpower]

Maybe Tom should move Newgrounds to Canada.

btw: 1 CAD (closing) = 0.9976 USD
U.S. money? More like MONKEY DOLLARS

[AccountableMasses]

Forgot to mention how would this affect everyday life here the us and the internet in general?

At 11/5/10 07:47 PM, poxpower wrote: Maybe Tom should move Newgrounds to Canada.

btw: 1 CAD (closing) = 0.9976 USD
U.S. money? More like MONKEY DOLLARS

yeah, just been to Windsor a few weeks ago, that pretty scary.

[orangebomb]

I highly doubt it will be even approved by the Senate, this is something I would expect from the far fringes of the political spectrum would agree on, but moderates would be against it overall.

And even if it does pass, I don't really think it would be enforced very much at all, so a site like Newgrounds shouldn't worry about it too much.

[Camarohusky]

Nothing about this even hints that NG will within 100 miles of the chopping block.

[TheThing]

If you actually read the synopsis of the bill posted (which itself is biased), it says that a court must say that a website's centered around copyright infringement, ie the Pirate Bay.

Sites like Newgrounds, Youtube and others can safely say that a majority of their content is original (in the sense that whoever uploaded it mostly likely created it or edited it under fair-use)

[aviewaskewed]

At 11/6/10 01:28 AM, TheThing wrote: If you actually read the synopsis of the bill posted (which itself is biased), it says that a court must say that a website's centered around copyright infringement, ie the Pirate Bay.

I've certainly heard of this Bill kicking around as well. Really this is why such a thing would even be written, because who can really argue that Infringement is anything but theft and a crime.

That said though the problem with these kinds of laws is how they are enforced and the way they are written and enforced. California's law about violent video games sold to minors is being debated by The Supreme Court right now and may be struck down over the language of it being too vague and un-Constitutional potentially....I actually want to do a whole new topic on that.

[SadisticMonkey]

as disgustingly far-reaching as the bill may be, I don't see why newgrounds would specifically be a target more than a lot of other websites

[Camarohusky]

At 11/6/10 08:12 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: as disgustingly far-reaching as the bill may be, I don't see why newgrounds would specifically be a target more than a lot of other websites

See below.

At 11/6/10 03:04 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I've certainly heard of this Bill kicking around as well. Really this is why such a thing would even be written, because who can really argue that Infringement is anything but theft and a crime.

I don't get what all of the uproar is. This isn't the censoring of anything. This is the stopping of crime. I see quite few problems with the uproar.

First: If this were some homeless guy selling pirated movies, music, and other stolen goods by a closed dry cleaning on Olive Way in Seattle (yes, homeless chop shop can be found here on weekends) no one would give two shits if the guy was shut up and thrown in jail. Then again, if this were a reputable company that was selling pirated copies and other stolen goods no one would care. Both cases are exactly like the sites targetted under this law. They're all thieves.

Second: Flowing from the first point seems to be a shield for the internet. These sites are being defending because they are part of the net, not for what they do. Should we make the net a shield from all criminal culpability? Should chil pron follow this too? Should it only be illegal in hard copy form, just like many people seem to believe thievery should be?

[Gario]

At 11/6/10 11:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
First: If this were some homeless guy selling pirated movies, music, and other stolen goods by a closed dry cleaning on Olive Way in Seattle (yes, homeless chop shop can be found here on weekends) no one would give two shits if the guy was shut up and thrown in jail. Then again, if this were a reputable company that was selling pirated copies and other stolen goods no one would care. Both cases are exactly like the sites targetted under this law. They're all thieves.

Alright, and who's going to interpret the law? Have you seen how, say, Youtube handles this sort of thing? Many videos that they take down are actually protected by exemptions of the copyright law, but the videos are taken down anyway, and the user is punished because Youtube and it's users have no clue how the law really works. You know why this is the case? Because Youtube as a body of executives don't understand the finer points of the law, and yet they've become responsible for it.

Now this responsibility is being passed on to internet providers (whom haven't shown any experience handling the law properly, themselves), and they're going to be responsible for removing entire domains for what they see as infringements. Due to the severity of the punishment, this is going to make Youtube's less than graceful handling of the situation look like child's play.

On paper, it isn't too bad (less piracy is a good thing, for me), but in reality the fact that those that are going to enforce these things haven't done a very good job sifting through what is legal and what isn't in the past.

I find it funny that people think Newgrounds is safe because we're technically protected by the 'Fair-Use' clause of copyright exemption (which we are). That hasn't stopped people from removing similar material from the internet before and ignoring 'fair-use'.

[Camarohusky]

At 11/6/10 01:25 PM, Gario wrote: Alright, and who's going to interpret the law?

Yes, I do. Lawyers and judges. Business peopel will not make the decisions. Their corporate cousel will. Google has kicking things off youtube only when the original owners requests it. other than that it stays. trust me, there is a ton of pirated material on youtube that has not been removed, and a neglible amount of OK material that was removed.

Chances are, with a law like this, legitimate companies, like nwegrounds, who pride themselves on being free to the users (Google is NOT included here). will remain on their course until the government tells them to stop. That's how most other criminal laws work.

Trust me, this will NOT hurt any legitimate business. The Fulps have probably got some well paid attorney (no doubt wearing a limey powdered wig) somewhere who has the defense to any claim of copyright infrongement all set and ready to go the throw right at any government that tries to sanction them. The other companies that you value (and that truly value you, this does not include Google) will have the same sort ready to go.

[aviewaskewed]

Gario raises a good point. A lot of site owners and ISP's may not understand the concepts of "fair use" and such. Tom certainly didn't when the BBC came threatening about Telletubby Funland. So I think it's a case where if you're going to make an anti-piracy law it must be pretty specific and easy to understand, and those effected by it had better understand all the laws that might relate to it (like "fair use"). But I'm not sure if such a thing will really pass anyway, it's been tried before and it's failed before.

[Camarohusky]

At 11/6/10 03:09 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: If their anti-piracy countermeasures fail, then TOO FUCKING BAD! Develop better ones, don't come crying to the government to create a national blacklist!

Yeah, seriousl! If someone steals your car, get a better security system. If that fails TOO BAD! Get an even better one!

It's not the state's job to protect its people at all. If the people can't protect themselves they need to try harder.

[Gario]

At 11/6/10 02:05 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/6/10 01:25 PM, Gario wrote: Alright, and who's going to interpret the law?

Yes, I do. Lawyers and judges. Business peopel will not make the decisions. Their corporate cousel will. Google has kicking things off youtube only when the original owners requests it. other than that it stays. trust me, there is a ton of pirated material on youtube that has not been removed, and a neglible amount of OK material that was removed.

Judges are really only mediators when it comes to federal court - it's actually the jury that interprets the law (which is made up of regular people). The only time the judge interprets the law is in civil court, which I can assure you none of these copyright cases will fall under. Lawyers are only interpretors of the law as far as the client wants them to be, so they're ultimately an extension of their clients. Now we're back to where we started - the internet providers are being given the responsibility to take action against these web domains.

As for Youtube's poor handling of pirated material and fair-use material, isn't that actually further proof that these companies really shouldn't have the responsibility to handle these things?

Trust me, this will NOT hurt any legitimate business. The Fulps have probably got some well paid attorney (no doubt wearing a limey powdered wig) somewhere who has the defense to any claim of copyright infrongement all set and ready to go the throw right at any government that tries to sanction them. The other companies that you value (and that truly value you, this does not include Google) will have the same sort ready to go.

Perhaps Fulp does have the attorneys to counter this, since this is a fairly large site. I know of quite a few other legitimate sites that deal with fair-use material that couldn't afford an attorney to defend their rights - what happens to them if someone calls them on it? They disappear. As much as I'd love to keep this discussion Newgrounds oriented (or 'nwegrounds', whatever you want to talk about) it's actually much too big of an issue to restrict to how it'll affect Newgrounds.

[Camarohusky]

At 11/6/10 04:35 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Piracy is small potatoes compared to car theft.

Just because crime is small doesn't mean it isn't crime and shouldn't be stopped. Hey, Assault is small potatoes compared to murder, so I guess we should just ignore it too.

Protecting the people, yes.
Protecting the companies, not so much. It's that reasoning that led to the bailouts. If a company is failing, it's THEIR fault, and government spending and blacklists are NOT the solution.

This is NOTHING like the bailout. These companies aren't doing anything wrong, nor are they at fault for any of this. people are stealing from these companies, and these people should be thwarted.

Stealing is stealing, regardless of what it is and who it is from.

[Camarohusky]

At 11/6/10 04:02 PM, Gario wrote: [Judges don't interpret and lawyers only do what their clients want.}

Just an FYI, I am paying $40K a year to learn what lawyers do and do not do. The judges I was talking about were appellate judges, who DO interpret the law. Bench trial judges also have a great deal of power, see the Prop 8, DOMA and DADT cases. You are right in that lawyers do what their clients want, but that's all you are right about here. Lawyers determine the law. The appellate judges and trial judges ONLY do what the litigating lawyers bring to them. A lawyer for NG, or a smaller company will make a theory that if followed will become the law (to an extent) on the subject, or at least that specific case.

i won't go into any of the other legal things you said, as they really aren't relevant here.

As for Youtube's poor handling of pirated material and fair-use material, isn't that actually further proof that these companies really shouldn't have the responsibility to handle these things?

Youtube's poor handling has more to do with Google's lack of caring for the consumers than it does with business responsibility.

I know of quite a few other legitimate sites that deal with fair-use material that couldn't afford an attorney to defend their rights - what happens to them if someone calls them on it? They disappear.

My ACLU buddies would go to bat pro-bono for small companies who would be targetted by this law. Trust me, this will not have a bad effect.

[Leap]

At 11/6/10 01:25 PM, Gario wrote:

At 11/6/10 11:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
First: If this were some homeless guy selling pirated movies, music, and other stolen goods by a closed dry cleaning on Olive Way in Seattle (yes, homeless chop shop can be found here on weekends) no one would give two shits if the guy was shut up and thrown in jail. Then again, if this were a reputable company that was selling pirated copies and other stolen goods no one would care. Both cases are exactly like the sites targetted under this law. They're all thieves.

We already have law's governing this type of situation. Both here in the UK and in the US there are already very strong , very wide reaching pieces of legislation that have been pushed through at the bequest of major copyright holders. These should be sufficient for the situation as it stands now. And you're wrong, companies bring law suites against each other all the time. That sort of activity by a large company does not go unnoticed.

On paper, it isn't too bad (less piracy is a good thing, for me), but in reality the fact that those that are going to enforce these things haven't done a very good job sifting through what is legal and what isn't in the past.

I find it funny that people think Newgrounds is safe because we're technically protected by the 'Fair-Use' clause of copyright exemption (which we are). That hasn't stopped people from removing similar material from the internet before and ignoring 'fair-use'.

I have two main problems with this bill. The first is the wide scope of the bill as it stands, very little is clearly defined and allows for a very loose interpretation of what counts as copyright "theft".

If the US starts blocking domains then are those domains only blocked inside the US or does that block cover the entire world? The root DNS servers are (at the moment anyway) are all on US soil. If enough blocks are made then other countries may stop using the "official" servers and run their own, making the blocks useless and loosening the USA's grip on the internet and creating a fragmented version of what we use today.

The second problem is also related to the loose nature of the bill, namely mission creep. Take for example the 2000 Terrorism Act in the UK, in particular the infamous Section 44. This was a piece of legislation so loosely worded that it gave police the power to stop and search anybody they wanted without reason. Now obviously this was created in relation to terrorism but the balance of power was shifted so much that it was used by any policeman who fancied being a nosy git, thankfully this invasion of privacy was rescinded in early 2010 .

If the USA start blocking entire domains on the basis of copyright infringement, then how long will it be until it starts blocking domains on political grounds? the possibilities for corruption are many and the nature of business means that corporations are going to use this bill to torpedo competitors and stifle anything that might be a threat to their profits.