New Bill Would Require U.S. ISPs to Block Pirate Sites

[Colonel Travis]

I used to work for a member of Congress. This bill would not be used to take down just pirate sites. It could be used to shut down any site that the U.S. says violates U.S. Code Title 17, which includes U.S. government works, questions of fair use, etc. It also means the U.S. gov't. could shove its nose into ICANN and start dictating who gets domains and who gets them taken away. It means taxpayer dollars could go to public lawyers on behalf of private companies who seek private damages. It means ISPs are under more control of the federal government. This kind of bill was shot down a few years ago. Now there's a president and Congress who salivate at having this kind of control. Trust me, I've worked with these people - they eat this *bleep* up.

Not a fan of piracy, I'm not a black helicopter guy, but I'm not a fan of this particular bill.

 

[Wishmaster]

It does depend on what type of porn though.
Certain types should not only be shut down, but go after & prosecute those responsible.
(Im not talking about typical porn stuff, I mean the sickos out there & the illegal type)

Things like that, no issues or complaints here.

Just don't block something because you disagree or dont like it.

you do know you contradict yourself right? rather we like or don't like a certain type of porn it still is a matter of personal expression, therefore protected by our right to free speech. i will agree there is a lot of porn out there that i would love to see banned, but i will not infringe on someones right to free speech.

I agree there is some I do not think should be out there and think its simply disgusting.
But it is not illegal, and to each their own. It is a free country afterall.


What I was refering to the type this IS illegal. Like with kids etc.
That type of stuff is not only sick, but certainly crossing the line.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in what I meant.

 

[pparks1]

Pirating wouldn't be so bad if we were not being charged out our *** for everything. Adobe's Photoshop and Microsoft Windows is a good example.

However, for a second consider that if Adobe Photoshop was not pirated and not used by tons of people....would Adobe continue to charge such a high price? I'd say if die-hard "pirated" photoshop users were to turn their nose up at Adobe and make a stand by using something entirely different (like The Gimp) or get behind a competitor that Adobe might actually be forced to make a change. As it stands now though, they make their money from business users and have the benefit of a zillion freeloaders also using their software, sharing tips and tricks online, buying books and such and developing community awareness of their product. Therefore they can continue to charge businesses a fortune and go home with their wallets fat.


The only reason that I choose to discuss piracy is that I think somethings presenting alternative views or thinking about things can sometimes cause people to question what they are doing. And with pirated software and such, often times it is hosted on sites with spyware/malware etc...so trying to keep people from accessing these sites by discouraging piracy might even make more home computers less vulnerable to these risks.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

I'd say if die-hard "pirated" photoshop users were to turn their nose up at Adobe and make a stand by using something entirely different (like The Gimp) or get behind a competitor that Adobe might actually be forced to make a change.

In a perfect world that may be a valid path for everyone but not everyone can use other programs such as gimp as effectivly as they can Photoshop. There lies the problem.

 

[lorddenis]

you realy think that adobe would cheapen his products if more people would use legal version ? they only care for the money they get. and about microsoft i think that there wouldnt be any pirated windows on any pc if games and sofware would work on ubunto (linox).

 

[Wishmaster]

I'd say if die-hard "pirated" photoshop users were to turn their nose up at Adobe and make a stand by using something entirely different (like The Gimp) or get behind a competitor that Adobe might actually be forced to make a change.

In a perfect world that may be a valid path for everyone but not everyone can use other programs such as gimp as effectivly as they can Photoshop. There lies the problem.

But arent there other alternatives in PS family?

Sure, not everyone wants to pay $600+ for a software suite.

But there are others, like Elements that offers most of the core functions for $100 or less.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

you realy think that adobe would cheapen his products if more people would use legal version ? they only care for the money they get. and about microsoft i think that there wouldnt be any pirated windows on any pc if games and sofware would work on ubunto (linox).

I do believe that if software vendors made their products a lot cheaper and actually worth the cost then people would buy it. That is my opinion however.

As for the comment regarding PC Games, I do not think that everyone who pirates Windows does it because they cannot play games on Linux. Besides, if they pirated Windows to begin with wouldn't they just pirate the game to if it worked on Linux?

 

[Wishmaster]

I think that applies to Games as well.

If they make a good Game, the majority of people have no problems buying it.
Well, at least for me anyway. I have no issue putting out the $$ for a game if its really good.

But there are a lot of crap games out there, that aren't worth nearly what they sell for.

 

[Colonel Travis]

As it stands now though, they make their money from business users and have the benefit of a zillion freeloaders also using their software, sharing tips and tricks online, buying books and such and developing community awareness of their product. Therefore they can continue to charge businesses a fortune and go home with their wallets fat.

No, Adobe charges what it charges because of:
1.) The cost of production
2.) The market value price

If people stopped buying Adobe products, the price would go down. It's got zero to do with piracy and everything to do with what they produce and the market's willingness to buy it at an agreed price.

 

[lorddenis]

you realy think that adobe would cheapen his products if more people would use legal version ? they only care for the money they get. and about microsoft i think that there wouldnt be any pirated windows on any pc if games and sofware would work on ubunto (linox).

I do believe that if software vendors made their products a lot cheaper and actually worth the cost then people would buy it. That is my opinion however.

As for the comment regarding PC Games, I do not think that everyone who pirates Windows does it because they cannot play games on Linux. Besides, if they pirated Windows to begin with wouldn't they just pirate the game to if it worked on Linux?

i beliave that to. but even if evry person would buy a certain product they wouldt make it sheaper.

I think that applies to Games as well.

If they make a good Game, the majority of people have no problems buying it.
Well, at least for me anyway. I have no issue putting out the $$ for a game if its really good.

But there are a lot of crap games out there, that aren't worth nearly what they sell for.

agreat with that. but the problem is that you dont know wich game you will like and wich one you will not like. and with the prices so high!

its like you see this trailer for a game/ movie and its awsome and then the real thing its bad...

 

[geekfreak]

the free flow of info will not be blocked, one way or another people will get to the sites they want. in a nutshell "there has never been a lock made that can't be picked"

 

[BCXtreme]

it is not your choice if this bill will pass or fail

In America, that's a problem in and of itself.

Listen to the good Colonel. As I said before, the fact that this bill would be largely ineffective means that all it really does is open the door to full censorship. I can't help but notice that every way y'all have suggested that the gov't could prevent people from bypassing the filter would require them to take even MORE control over everything.

 

[Robert Cartman]

Illegal file sharing born with PCs. In the old times when there was no internet and copmuters, people made illegal copies of books, pictures, and everything that has a great value.
They can stop all the warez sites or turn off the whole internet, but they can not stop people to share softwares. (There are already exits several big groups that exchanging stafs on HDDs or private LAN parties.)
It would be intresting to know how much percent of the traffic made by illegal and legal transactions. I think if there were no warez on the net, we would be still using slow dial up connections.
One more intresting question is, what do you think about people who has more then 10GB monthly traffic? Don't tell me that they download every month 10gigs of freeware

 

[ken9122]

I used to work for a member of Congress. This bill would not be used to take down just pirate sites. It could be used to shut down any site that the U.S. says violates U.S. Code Title 17, which includes U.S. government works, questions of fair use, etc. It also means the U.S. gov't. could shove its nose into ICANN and start dictating who gets domains and who gets them taken away. It means taxpayer dollars could go to public lawyers on behalf of private companies who seek private damages. It means ISPs are under more control of the federal government. This kind of bill was shot down a few years ago. Now there's a president and Congress who salivate at having this kind of control. Trust me, I've worked with these people - they eat this *bleep* up.

Not a fan of piracy, I'm not a black helicopter guy, but I'm not a fan of this particular bill.

+1

 

[pparks1]

In a perfect world that may be a valid path for everyone but not everyone can use other programs such as gimp as effectivly as they can Photoshop. There lies the problem.

Well, I would have to assume that at the start, they had to spend the time to learn how to use Photoshop. Perhaps they could also spend some time and learn something else. It's entirely possible. Maybe they don't want to bother with learning...and if learning is that difficult for them...they could just pay for Photoshop.

But there are others, like Elements that offers most of the core functions for $100 or less.

There certainly are others. But lots of people don't want to settle for less functionality and just pirate the full Photoshop

the free flow of info will not be blocked, one way or another people will get to the sites they want. in a nutshell "there has never been a lock made that can't be picked"

Sure, but look at it this way. Let's say that you work for a company and they keep all of the software in a broom closet. Let's say the closet is not locked. Let's say that there are no security cameras or people around. So, an employee could now wander into the room, take the software off the shelf, shove it in their backpack and wander out the door. So, now the company finds that people are stealing software so they put a lock on the door. So, this cuts down on some of the people who aren't going to resort to lock picking. Will it stop everyone...perhaps not. Maybe that guy who has a master key or who might wander in while the cleaning crew has the door unlocked...might not be stopped. So, now the company installs cameras...so not only do you have to get past the lock, you have to get past the camera or explain your actions. This stops more of the theft...perhaps not 100% of it...but quite a bit of it. Would you simply just recommend leaving that door unlocked since it won't stop the most adamant of thieves????

 

[Product FRED]

Pirating is sharing files. So essentially, one would have to disable copy and paste, click and drag, uploading and downloading.

pirating is not "sharing" files. It's sharing files that are not legal to share...there is a really big difference here.

Sidenote, torrenting is much more efficient than traditional downloading since it puts a small load on several clients rather than a large load on a single server.

Yes, torrenting is more efficient. Nobody said, "they are going to block torrents". I torrent Linux distributions all of the time because it's the fastest way for me to do it. And going forward, this torrenting would be allowed without question. However, if you are torrenting something like PhotoShop, Microsoft Office of Illustrator....then this is something altogether different.

Ok what I meant was that sharing certain files iss essentially pirating. There is no way they can filter all files being transfered around. Pirating has existed since before the internet. The internet just makes it easier.

 

[pparks1]

They can stop all the warez sites or turn off the whole internet, but they can not stop people to share softwares. (There are already exits several big groups that exchanging stafs on HDDs or private LAN parties.)

Sure, they can always trade software in other ways. But I'd bet dollars to donuts that most people don't get their software by swapping around hard drives from friend to friend and making a big collection.

One more intresting question is, what do you think about people who has more then 10GB monthly traffic? Don't tell me that they download every month 10gigs of freeware

I'm not entirely sure you could effectively prove that argument. For example, I download Linux distros pretty frequently. I also stream movies from netflix to my tv. In addition, I download video game demos on both my PC as well as my Xbox360 on a monthly basis. Some people buy a fair amount of music from iTunes. Don't forget about services like Hulu and whatnot that let you catch up with TV that you might have missed. There are lots of other high bandwidth things that that you can do with your computer. I wish I could get my ISP to provide me with monthly totals for the past 4-5 years. We could see exactly what a person who doesn't really pirate anything does bandwidth wise.

 

[s31]

To an Australian this has been done to death, we have been talking about this for a very long time when the Government tried to implement a filter to stop these sights.

um no, that was to block child pornography and RC content.

the aussie filter is dead, it wont pass anyway..

 

[geekfreak]

In a perfect world that may be a valid path for everyone but not everyone can use other programs such as gimp as effectivly as they can Photoshop. There lies the problem.

Well, I would have to assume that at the start, they had to spend the time to learn how to use Photoshop. Perhaps they could also spend some time and learn something else. It's entirely possible. Maybe they don't want to bother with learning...and if learning is that difficult for them...they could just pay for Photoshop.

But there are others, like Elements that offers most of the core functions for $100 or less.

There certainly are others. But lots of people don't want to settle for less functionality and just pirate the full Photoshop

the free flow of info will not be blocked, one way or another people will get to the sites they want. in a nutshell "there has never been a lock made that can't be picked"

Sure, but look at it this way. Let's say that you work for a company and they keep all of the software in a broom closet. Let's say the closet is not locked. Let's say that there are no security cameras or people around. So, an employee could now wander into the room, take the software off the shelf, shove it in their backpack and wander out the door. So, now the company finds that people are stealing software so they put a lock on the door. So, this cuts down on some of the people who aren't going to resort to lock picking. Will it stop everyone...perhaps not. Maybe that guy who has a master key or who might wander in while the cleaning crew has the door unlocked...might not be stopped. So, now the company installs cameras...so not only do you have to get past the lock, you have to get past the camera or explain your actions. This stops more of the theft...perhaps not 100% of it...but quite a bit of it. Would you simply just recommend leaving that door unlocked since it won't stop the most adamant of thieves????

i state again the real issue is not the copyright holders, our gov wants this so they can in a way go back to pre-internet. our government can't get away with half of what they use to because of an open internet. stop trying to make this new law only about the copyright holders, because it is not. and yes because the info needs to flow freely to protect peeps freedoms this is one door that should stay unlocked.

 

[pparks1]

i state again the real issue is not the copyright holders, our gov wants this so they can in a way go back to pre-internet. our government can't get away with half of what they use to because of an open internet. stop trying to make this new law only about the copyright holders, because it is not. and yes because the info needs to flow freely to protect peeps freedoms this is one door that should stay unlocked.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I however don't think this is a conspiracy ploy by the government to prevent the spread of information. Sorry, I just don't think that's what is going on here. I realize that I could be wrong.