Internet Censorship begins in America; 70 websites seized

[rambone]

70 Websites Seized without warning by Homeland Security

And I don't see how anyone can say they were given due process when the seizure happened without warning. No opportunity to present a defense in court? No evidence? No appeal?

Even the DMCA requires warnings & notices to be issued that copyrighted material has been posted.

And why oh why is Homeland Security doing this anyways?

Its Digital Fascism.


One of the hallmarks of Fascism is how closely intertwined the government and corporations become. This smells of big corporations using government power to enforce their own profit motives.

 

[steveh_131]

And why oh why is Homeland Security doing this anyways?

Sounds like Homeland Security is the **AA's new leg-breaker.

 

[hornadylnl]

The argument that the recording industry is being cheated out of profits is just about as good as the Post Office's attempts to tax emails. They believe that every email you send cheats them out of the snail mail tax they should have sold you. How many of your emails would you send if you had to pay a tax to do so?

I tried one of the music sharing sites many moons ago. I'm so computer stupid that I couldn't figure out how to really do it. But of all those who do download music off of the internet, how many of their "stolen" songs would they just choose to go without if they had to pay for them? I'm guessing most of them.

Music sharing could also be a positive for the industry. How many times have you heard of a band but don't want to pay $15 for their cd to decide if you like them or not? If more people are exposed to a band's music through whatever means, the more fans they can gain, the more concert tickets, tshirts, etc. they can sell.

INGO is the only website I've ever given money to as it's the only one that I have felt that was worth it. If I had to pay money up front, the chance of me ever coming here would be nil and this site would probably have 50 members. By getting a chance to see what INGO was about before I paid and actually enjoying this site, I gave money as I felt is was worth the money I gave. Just as if I downloaded a cd of an unknown band. If I became a fan of their music, I'd be happy to go out and purchase any cd's they make in the future.

 

[level.eleven]

The argument that the recording industry is being cheated out of profits is just about as good as the Post Office's attempts to tax emails. They believe that every email you send cheats them out of the snail mail tax they should have sold you. How many of your emails would you send if you had to pay a tax to do so?

I tried one of the music sharing sites many moons ago. I'm so computer stupid that I couldn't figure out how to really do it. But of all those who do download music off of the internet, how many of their "stolen" songs would they just choose to go without if they had to pay for them? I'm guessing most of them.

Music sharing could also be a positive for the industry. How many times have you heard of a band but don't want to pay $15 for their cd to decide if you like them or not? If more people are exposed to a band's music through whatever means, the more fans they can gain, the more concert tickets, tshirts, etc. they can sell.

INGO is the only website I've ever given money to as it's the only one that I have felt that was worth it. If I had to pay money up front, the chance of me ever coming here would be nil and this site would probably have 50 members. By getting a chance to see what INGO was about before I paid and actually enjoying this site, I gave money as I felt is was worth the money I gave. Just as if I downloaded a cd of an unknown band. If I became a fan of their music, I'd be happy to go out and purchase any cd's they make in the future.

What have touched on is an emerging model for tech oriented businesses. INGO, is actually ahead of the game in this new market. Giving away your product and relying on other avenues for revenue generation is becoming a lucrative blueprint for businesses that rely on the web to distribute their product. Legacy industries, namely newspapers and the recording industry, are having trouble adapting to these emerging trends. Already mentioned, Radiohead recently made their latest album available to download and asked for a "suggested" donation. You could dl the album and not pay a cent, or you could leave an amount that you thought was appropriate. They also removed the overhead of a record label and offered the dl right from their website, using an adaptation of private networks and torrents.

Whether you think the I in IP stands for imaginary or intellectual, these legacy industries have a lot of catching up to do or they will be left in the dust - legally or illegally.

 

[hornadylnl]

How times have all of us bought a new cd because we heard a great song on the radio? Only to find out the rest of the album sucks? There needs to be some workable model of listening to most of or all of an album before we have to pay for it.

I'm a big fan of the blues and others almost zero radio play. If you want to hear it, you either need satellite radio or Internet radio and even then, the selection of artists are very limited. Typically with blues, I either love or hate the style. There are many big names out there that I'd like to listen to but I'm not forking over $10-15 on the chance of finding someone I like or just adding another drink coaster to the collection. If I find someone I like, I'll spend more money on the rest of their albums. I think by putting out free music, the industry will sell a lot more music to people like me. $15 won't make or break me but taking the chance on a cd is about as risky as throwing away on lottery tickets.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This has been a truly frustrating thread to read. On one hand, enacted law says that copyright infringement is stealing. When you buy a DVD, MP3, CD, VHS, or some digital books, you either get a copy of the copyright restrictions - which you have agreed to by purchasing the media - or you have agreed to abide by the licensing restrictions. That being so, you have entered into a legal agreement. The morality of breaking that agreement is up to you, but the _legality_ of the agreement is a matter of law. Most ebooks I purchase are from a publisher that doesn't believe in DRM and makes their content legally available for download or transfer, reasoning that word-of-mouth will result in sales of their paper books - a philosophy that appears to be working for them.

Some posters on this thread seem to have a problem understanding the concept of copyright and the fact that violating the copyright agreement is a violation of the law subject to legal action and penalties, if convicted. You can debate the "morality" of such law, but like the legalization of slavery at the time, the law is the law until proclaimed unconstitutional by a jurisdictional court or until changed by authorized governmental procedure. Don't like the law? Work to get it changed.

Finally, folks on both sides of the issue seem to get caught up in name calling and imputing motives to the other side that lay on the far side of reasonability. Some of it is apparent frustration, but a lot of it seems to be a way of avoiding looking at the posted arguments for validity and/or trying to spin the argument another way. If anyone here besides SemperFiUSMC owns or runs an internet business or has a background in copyright/DRM law, I'll be happy to listen to counter-arguments, but the rest of you seem to be just arguing around the basic issue.

I'll admit I don't understand why DHS is involved in this issue instead of the FBI, and that bothers me, but I believe SemperFiUSMC has adequately explained the process and agreements which have been violated and for which action has been taken.

 

[Security122]

...
Music sharing could also be a positive for the industry. How many times have you heard of a band but don't want to pay $15 for their cd to decide if you like them or not? If more people are exposed to a band's music through whatever means, the more fans they can gain, the more concert tickets, tshirts, etc. they can sell.
...If I became a fan of their music, I'd be happy to go out and purchase any cd's they make in the future.

I agree 100% with this. There are a lot of unknown bands willing to give their music away (even Prince as it was pointed out earlier). Of course they would have to write their own material or get permission from the songwriters to do this, else they would be cheating the songwriters out of the fruits of their labor. However, a lot of unknown songwriters are willing to let their songs be used without payment because it gives them exposure.

 

[steveh_131]

Some posters on this thread seem to have a problem understanding the concept of copyright and the fact that violating the copyright agreement is a violation of the law subject to legal action and penalties, if convicted. You can debate the "morality" of such law, but like the legalization of slavery at the time, the law is the law until proclaimed unconstitutional by a jurisdictional court or until changed by authorized governmental procedure. Don't like the law? Work to get it changed.

There's no problem understanding the concept of copyright.

The problem is that not a single person here can defend the moral rationale behind copyright law with any kind of logic or reason.

Yes, yes, yes, we all know that it's illegal. However, the fact that it's against the law does not mean it is "stealing" in any kind of moral sense.

 

[Hkindiana]

There's no problem understanding the concept of copyright.

The problem is that not a single person here can defend the moral rationale behind copyright law with any kind of logic or reason.

Yes, yes, yes, we all know that it's illegal. However, the fact that it's against the law does not mean it is "stealing" in any kind of moral sense.

OPEN YOUR EYES!!! It IS stealing, and stealing IS morally WRONG.

STEAL definition;
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
4. to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
5. To take away by unjust means <they've stolen our liberty>
6. To take surreptitiously or without permission <steal a kiss>
7. Appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of

 

[hornadylnl]

It's great when you have organizations like the NFL suing churches for having superbowl viewing parties.

 

[steveh_131]

OPEN YOUR EYES!!! It IS stealing, and stealing IS morally WRONG.

Then I pose you the same question. Is it MORALLY wrong to watch a DVD that you purchased with a friend who has not purchased it?

 

[hornadylnl]

Then I pose you the same question. Is it MORALLY wrong to watch a DVD that you purchased with a friend who has not purchased it?

Damn skippy because he would have 1000% have purchased his own copy had you not showed it to him. Just like every email you send deprives the post office out of a 40 some odd cent stamp sale.

 

[Hkindiana]

Then I pose you the same question. Is it MORALLY wrong to watch a DVD that you purchased with a friend who has not purchased it?

If you would care to read the the licensing statement at the beginning of every DVD, it says that it is for private in home use. There is no limit to the number of people who can view it. You can have ten friends over to watch it without violating the license terms. However, making copies, OR facilitating others to make copies, is STEALING, and that is legally, and MORALLY wrong.

 

[Hkindiana]

Damn skippy because he would have 1000% have purchased his own copy had you not showed it to him. Just like every email you send deprives the post office out of a 40 some odd cent stamp sale.

I can't believe that some people STILL believe the urban legend about the postal service wanting to charge for e-mails!

 

[steveh_131]

If you would care to read the the licensing statement at the beginning of every DVD, it says that it is for private in home use. There is no limit to the number of people who can view it. You can have ten friends over to watch it without violating the license terms. However, making copies, OR facilitating others to make copies, is STEALING, and that is legally, and MORALLY wrong.

So it's only immoral because it's illegal.

That's basically what you're saying. It's immoral because you're violating the terms of the license.

Whether my friend watches it with me or I burn him a copy to watch on his own, the result is the same. He watches the movie without paying the creator. On a philosophical level this is exactly the same thing. The only difference is one violates the terms of the license and one does not.

Morally, you can't call one stealing and not the other when they both result in the same thing.

 

[Prometheus]

I can't believe that some people STILL believe the urban legend about the postal service wanting to charge for e-mails!

While I can't speak to what Hornady believes, I think he is saying that every time the post office raises the cost of stamps they bring out spokes people who ALWAYS say:

"internet email has decreased the amount of correspondence and letters people send via the post office and thus we need to...."

The comparison is more than fair.

I use a service called groveshark for my phone. Since I'm streaming music and not saving it, it is not pirating and is sanctioned. The benefit of this service (unlike pandora) is that I can create any playlists and on demand play any song I want or repeat it or skip it. No limits, hassles, nada.

Would I buy any of those songs that are the 'flavor of the day'? No. Is it any different than someone who "pirates" the song and saves a digital copy to their library? No.

I buy the music of artists I like and enjoy. Occasionally I buy entire CD's on the rare occasion it's good enough.

Nowadays, I just stream what I want from my laptop or phone. I probably only have 50 songs on my phone... but I've got the entire world of music I can stream on demand.

Anyway, the point is valid. I do believe in intellectual property Rights. I do not believe in intellectual property Rights that exist in perpetuity however.

Those concepts are above the 'sound byte only' mindset however.

 

[Hkindiana]

So it's only immoral because it's illegal.

That's basically what you're saying. It's immoral because you're violating the terms of the license.

Whether my friend watches it with me or I burn him a copy to watch on his own, the result is the same. He watches the movie without paying the creator. On a philosophical level this is exactly the same thing. The only difference is one violates the terms of the license and one does not.

Morally, you can't call one stealing and not the other when they both result in the same thing.

Do you REALLY not understand, or are you just acting that way? Either way, you are wearing blinders and only seeing what you want to see. I'll try one more time in VERY SIMPLE terms:

1. Virtually everyone agrees that STEALING is morally wrong - if you don't, then this discussion is moot

2. There is no philosophical level involved, because having a friend watch the DVD with you IS NOT the same as burning a copy - which is stealing

3. Burning copies, or HELPING others to do so, is stealing, See the dictionary definitions of stealing that I posted earlier. You are stealing br SEVERAL of those definitions - if you can't see that, then again, this point is moot

4. If I drill under your property and pump out oil, even if I give it away, I am stealing. If you buy a new wonder drug and reverse engineer it to make copies you are stealing. If you sell or give away someone elses property you are stealing.

5 When you buy a CD, or a DVD, you are buying a piece of plastic. It comes with a licensing agreement for you to view what is on that piece of plastic. There is nothing wrong with letting your friends view/listen, because that is not in violation of the law. If you don't agree with a law, you should work to CHANGE it, not BREAK it.

6. The new Taylor swift album went gold in less than a month. If the songwriter received four cents for each cd, he/she earned $40,000 for their creative efforts. If you purchased the first cd and uploaded it for others to steal, and one million people burned illegal copies how much did the songwriter earn for their talents? - FOUR CENTS. I don't know what you do for a living, but I think you would get pretty ticked off if someone came in and offered to do your job for free.

7. Am I getting through at all?

 

[steveh_131]

1. Virtually everyone agrees that STEALING is morally wrong - if you don't, then this discussion is moot

Agreed.

2. There is no philosophical level involved, because having a friend watch the DVD with you IS NOT the same as burning a copy - which is stealing

How is it not the same? What does it matter if he watches it at my house or at his? He's still watching it without paying for it, right? What if I setup a webcam pointed at my TV and he watches it that way? Still not stealing because I didn't physically burn the DVD?

3. Burning copies, or HELPING others to do so, is stealing, See the dictionary definitions of stealing that I posted earlier. You are stealing br SEVERAL of those definitions - if you can't see that, then again, this point is moot

See previous argument.

4. If I drill under your property and pump out oil, even if I give it away, I am stealing. If you buy a new wonder drug and reverse engineer it to make copies you are stealing. If you sell or give away someone elses property you are stealing.

If you pump my oil I now have less oil. Not at all the same as replicating information.

If I purchase an automobile, am I not allowed to take it apart and learn how it works? If I take apart the carb and see how it works, am I stealing?

5 When you buy a CD, or a DVD, you are buying a piece of plastic. It comes with a licensing agreement for you to view what is on that piece of plastic. There is nothing wrong with letting your friends view/listen, because that is not in violation of the law. If you don't agree with a law, you should work to CHANGE it, not BREAK it.

Again, we all know it's illegal. Don't care.

6. The new Taylor swift album went gold in less than a month. If the songwriter received four cents for each cd, he/she earned $40,000 for their creative efforts. If you purchased the first cd and uploaded it for others to steal, and one million people burned illegal copies how much did the songwriter earn for their talents? - FOUR CENTS. I don't know what you do for a living, but I think you would get pretty ticked off if someone came in and offered to do your job for free.

Then, hey, maybe I should have picked a career that couldn't be easily replicated by someone else for free. You know? There's PLENTY of open source models out there that don't pretend to own every piece of knowledge and can still rake in a profit. Unfortunately, our culture is so caught up in irrational copyright law that these free market business models are obscured.

7. Am I getting through at all?

Oh, you're through. You're just wrong.

 

[Hkindiana]

Not directed at anyone in particular, but it takes intelligence to understand intellectual rights.

 

[steveh_131]

Not directed at anyone in particular, but it takes intelligence to understand intellectual rights.

And it takes greed to understand imaginary property rights.