• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

SOPA & ACTA

Should the SOPA Bill be passed?


  • Total voters
    138

Oryx

CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    Isn't this SORT OF a good thing?

    Stop- Prevent something from happening
    Online- the internet
    Piracy- the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc
    Act- Doing something about something

    Isn't SOPA supposed to STOP ONLINE PIRACY? My Teachers told everyone at my school not to use Wikipedia as a Reasearching tool. Why?

    Anyone can post on Wikipedia.

    That would explain why they're fighting against SOPA, but then again, Wikipedia has those refrences on their pages, so they should be fine.

    Why is the Pokecommunity worried that they might shut down? You guys have been here since 2002 according to the small print- ow my eyes. The Pokemon Company, or whoever owns Pokemon would have shut this place down if PC did'nt have the copyright things, or this:

    © 2002 - 2012 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
    Pokémon characters and images belong to Pokémon USA, Inc. and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures,
    GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company, Pokémon USA, Inc., The Pokémon Company International, or Wizards of the Coast. We just love Pokémon.
    All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2012 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
    PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User posts belong to the user.

    As long websites have that, they should be fine. If they DIDN'T and they were doing PIRACY, then they SHOULD be shut down.

    But hey, if SOPA does more harm than good, I say no.

    If every bill was judged solely on its name over its actual content, then we would be in a much different place today than we are. There's much, much more to the bill than what the individual words in the title mean. It's probably been explained in this thread multiple times, and it's also everywhere if you just google what's wrong with SOPA.
     

    xelarator

    Gentlemen.
  • 131
    Posts
    12
    Years
    It's not that I want this bill to pass or anything, but if it does aren't they going to try to stop online piracy a little? Isn't SOPA for the bad sites to be shut down? And where can I get more info since you read my mind....
     

    TRIFORCE89

    Guide of Darkness
  • 8,123
    Posts
    20
    Years
    Anyone can post on Wikipedia.
    Yes, and there is a slim chance that you may access a page when it's been vandalized or have some incorrect information on it.

    But, for the most part, because anyone can edit it, it also holds that anyone can review it and then fix it. Click on the discussion tab for a Wikipedia article and you'll see all the talk and edit that go into an article. Its a democratic way of sharing information that 99.9% works and is accurate. Debate, peer-review, and user-editing helps articles to be pretty darn accurate most of the time.

    But for educational or research purposes, it's not considered a trustworthy source in case you happen to access it during that 0.1% of incorrectness.
     

    The Void

    hiiiii
  • 1,416
    Posts
    14
    Years
    I am really sad not only because of the number of people ignorant and unaware of the bill, but because the people who actually do know the bill think the bill is dead. The bill is not dead, guys. Lamar Smith still intends to push this bill and has only postponed the bill "until there is a wider agreement on a solution."

    Lamar Smith said:
    "The committee remains committed to finding a solution to the problem of online piracy that protects American intellectual property and innovation ... The House Judiciary Committee will postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution."

    And to update everyone of what's really happening to the bill and to inform everyone how much the Congress is willing to pass this bill no matter how much or how many giant corporations like Google protest against the bill, here's the rest of the story:

    The New York Times said:
    WASHINGTON — Congressional leaders on Friday indefinitely shelved two antipiracy bills that had rallied the Internet and rocked Capitol Hill, dealing a major defeat to the traditional media industry while emboldening a new breed of online political activists.​

    Using a medium that helped organize protests against theUsing a medium that helped organize protests against the legislation, Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, announced via Twitter that the vote would be delayed. But he indicated that the issue, which had been scheduled for a vote Tuesday, had not died.​

    "There's no reason that legitimate issues raised about PROTECT IP can't be resolved," he wrote, referring to the Senate bill by its shorthand name. "Counterfeiting & piracy cost 1000s of #jobs yearly. Americans rightfully expect to be fairly compensated 4 their work. I'm optimistic that we can reach compromise on PROTECT IP in coming week."​

    In the House, Representative Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, called off plans to formally draft his version of the antipiracy bill next month.​

    After vowing two days ago to move forward, Mr. Smith said in a statement on Friday: "The committee remains committed to finding a solution to the problem of online piracy that protects American intellectual property and innovation." But he added, "The House Judiciary Committee will postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution."​

    Speaker John A. Boehner, talking with reporters Friday in Baltimore, where House Republicans held their annual retreat, called the bill "well meaning," but said it needed "more consensus."​

    Supporters of the shelved bills as well as opponents pushing an alternative backed by the Internet giants Google and Facebook said differences could be bridged. But privately, Congressional aides and lobbyists say the pressures of an election year make action this year unlikely. Lawmakers will not be eager to brave another firestorm incited by Google, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia and other popular Web sites.​

    Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon and a key opponent of the bills, said lawmakers had collected more than 14 million names — more than 10 million of them voters — who contacted them to protest the once-obscure legislation.​

    "It's going to be a new day in the Senate," said Mr. Wyden, who is the co-author with Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, of an alternative bill that seeks to choke off money flows to Internet pirates. "The way citizens communicate with their government is never going to be the same."​

    Mr. Wyden spoke briefly to Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who was the author of the shelved bill, and both men said they pledged to find a way forward.​

    But Mr. Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made it clear that proponents of his bill, the Protect I.P. Act, felt burned by Internet companies that they said misled citizens into believing the bill would cripple the Internet. The opposition turned illegal on Thursday when the online hacker group Anonymous brought down the Department of Justice's Web site.​

    "Assuming everyone's telling the truth, that they want to stop the theft of property, that they want to stop endangering people with counterfeit goods, then we ought to be able to find common ground," Mr. Leahy said. "I hope people, when they're dealing, will deal honestly with you."​

    The Protect I.P. Act and its counterpart in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act, had broad bipartisan support when they were drafted by Mr. Smith and Senator Leahy. The bills were pushed hard by the Hollywood studios, recording industry, book publishing world and United States Chamber of Commerce as antidotes to rampant piracy of American cultural wares by offshore Web sites.​

    But many Internet companies, including Google, Facebook, Twitter and Reddit, saw the bills as a threat, and said they would stifle creativity on the Internet while forcing search engines and social media to become police officers for the Department of Justice. Other outlets, such as Wikipedia, objected to any proposed laws that could crimp the free flow of information on the Internet.​

    The Internet giants rallied their troops to rise up against such Washington stalwarts as the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America. What had started as a nonpartisan issue began turning to Republican advantage, as Republicans led the flight away from the bill.​

    By Thursday night, senior Republican staff members were boasting that the remaining supporters of the bills were largely Democrats, even though members of both parties had helped draft them.​

    Mr. Leahy went along with Mr. Reid's decision to back off but made it clear that he was doing so reluctantly.​

    "More time will pass with jobs lost and economies hurt by foreign criminals who are stealing American intellectual property and selling it back to American consumers," he said in a statement.​

    "The day will come when the senators who forced this move will look back and realize they made a knee-jerk reaction to a monumental problem," he added. "Somewhere in China today, in Russia today, and in many other countries that do not respect American intellectual property, criminals who do nothing but peddle in counterfeit products and stolen American content are smugly watching how the United States Senate decided it was not even worth debating how to stop the overseas criminals from draining our economy." legislation, Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, announced via Twitter that the vote would be delayed. But he indicated that the issue, which had been scheduled for a vote Tuesday, had not died.​

    Also, please, check the first/original post for updates on current events related to the events so you don't get led off track xD
     

    Mr. X

    It's... kinda effective?
  • 2,391
    Posts
    17
    Years
    What I love is how everyone is saying the bill is gonna do 'this this this and this, instead of this' even though the bill HASN'T passed meaning that they don't know what this bill will even do when combined with other anti-piracy laws.

    To everyone saying that this bill will do 'this this this this and this'? Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Let them hatch. Wait a couple of days. Then count them.
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    What I love is how everyone is saying the bill is gonna do 'this this this and this, instead of this' even though the bill HASN'T passed meaning that they don't know what this bill will even do when combined with other anti-piracy laws.

    To everyone saying that this bill will do 'this this this this and this'? Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Let them hatch. Wait a couple of days. Then count them.

    I don't know about you, but I would rather have a bill that works as intended the first time with little to no collateral damage over a bill that's the equivalent of a nuclear bomb - damage to everyone, innocent and guilty. It's not like we have no choice, and it's this or nothing. We have the ability to craft targeted legislation that would harm only the pirates and nothing else.
     

    Mr. X

    It's... kinda effective?
  • 2,391
    Posts
    17
    Years
    Not really.

    Given the scare tactics on each side, any bill targeting piracy will have to be forced through. Looking back at the past, you'll see that no matter how small, any attempt at removing piracy will always have people saying that the internet will die because of it.

    But, do you have proof that this bill will cause collateral damage? You don't because this bill isn't in effect. You can't use past events to judge what a future bill will do.

    I don't support this bill (I think modifications to the DMCA would be better instead of a entire new law.) but each side are using scare tactics to gain supporters. In the end, more have fallen for the anti-sopa scare tactics then pro-sopa scare tactics.

    i'll just say this again. To all those protesting against SOPA/PIPA, it might not be the best solution to Piracy but I don't see any of you coming up with a solution.
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    Not really.

    Given the scare tactics on each side, any bill targeting piracy will have to be forced through. Looking back at the past, you'll see that no matter how small, any attempt at removing piracy will always have people saying that the internet will die because of it.

    But, do you have proof that this bill will cause collateral damage? You don't because this bill isn't in effect. You can't use past events to judge what a future bill will do.

    I don't support this bill (I think modifications to the DMCA would be better instead of a entire new law.) but each side are using scare tactics to gain supporters. In the end, more have fallen for the anti-sopa scare tactics then pro-sopa scare tactics.

    i'll just say this again. To all those protesting against SOPA/PIPA, it might not be the best solution to Piracy but I don't see any of you coming up with a solution.

    It doesn't matter what will happen, you should judge a bill by the worst-case scenario of what could happen legally. What's the worst that could possibly happen should be the question, because if that does happen, then it would be legal and we would have no recourse because...it's legal. It's not easy to get a law repealed, especially if it's working well for the people that would be voting to repeal it. If we already know what can happen through the bill, why allow that to happen? Let's apply that to a bill with a more obviously disastrous outcome. Say a bill is proposed that's meant to do X good thing, doesn't really matter what it is. But the wording of the bill is such that it allows someone to murder another person legally. Would we push this bill through for the possible good thing, and then only repeal it when people start legally getting murdered? If the legislative system worked under a "pass everything and repeal it if it turns out badly" system, then there would be no need to vote on passing bills ever. That's just not how the government works. They look at the bill, see how it would be enforced, see the side effects, and decide if it's a good idea for it to be a law. It's not a matter of passing every bill, that would be disastrous.

    No one is claiming piracy isn't a problem that needs fixing (well the people that are, are probably not thinking it through and shouldn't be taken seriously). However, I'm on the side of it being a business-model problem, and not a legislative problem. Plenty of companies that are in the businesses affected by pirates have found ways to make their product easy to buy, convenient to buy, and just all-around a better experience than pirating, which is the best way to go about it.
     

    Mr. X

    It's... kinda effective?
  • 2,391
    Posts
    17
    Years
    It doesn't matter what will happen, you should judge a bill by the worst-case scenario of what could happen legally. What's the worst that could possibly happen should be the question, because if that does happen, then it would be legal and we would have no recourse because...it's legal. It's not easy to get a law repealed, especially if it's working well for the people that would be voting to repeal it. If we already know what can happen through the bill, why allow that to happen? Let's apply that to a bill with a more obviously disastrous outcome. Say a bill is proposed that's meant to do X good thing, doesn't really matter what it is. But the wording of the bill is such that it allows someone to murder another person legally. Would we push this bill through for the possible good thing, and then only repeal it when people start legally getting murdered? If the legislative system worked under a "pass everything and repeal it if it turns out badly" system, then there would be no need to vote on passing bills ever. That's just not how the government works. They look at the bill, see how it would be enforced, see the side effects, and decide if it's a good idea for it to be a law. It's not a matter of passing every bill, that would be disastrous.

    Just saying, but judging things by the worst that could happen and using that as a basis to not pass a bill or remove it sounds just like the reasoning for why the 2nd ammendment needs to be repealed. In theory it's good because it lets people own guns for protection, but the worst case senario (which you say we should judge bills on) is that we could have people using those guns to murder anyone who looks at them wrong.

    And my above example is why 'what can vs what will' isn't a valid excuse. My example is what can happen, not what will happen.

    As for being able to murder someone legally, I can't remember what state it was but I remember reading that one state had a law saying you could kill a person and long as you are riding on a wagon and using a specific type of weapon (Can't remember what kind though). It's a left over from the wild west days but it was, at that time, still on the books. It's a obscure law but by now it might have been removed. Either way, I don't remember the site I found that on or how many pages I had to go through to find it. The site was basically a list of stupid laws that states had.

    But as for pass bill, repeal if bad? It's happened before. Does Prohibition ring any bells?

    I'm not saying pass every bill. I'm saying that you should not judge a bill based upon what other people say will happen if it passes. Which is what most everyone here is doing. But still, if you read through the entire bill and still hold that opinion then thats fine. At least then its not a result of blinding following someone else.

    No one is claiming piracy isn't a problem that needs fixing (well the people that are, are probably not thinking it through and shouldn't be taken seriously). However, I'm on the side of it being a business-model problem, and not a legislative problem. Plenty of companies that are in the businesses affected by pirates have found ways to make their product easy to buy, convenient to buy, and just all-around a better experience than pirating, which is the best way to go about it.

    I'll agree. For the most part piracy can be solved as a business-model problem. But your still going to have people pirating material no matter what model a company is using. Steam is a good business-model, but just look at a torrent site and see how many Steam rips you can find. Good model yes, but a number of pirates are still going to pirate it just so they don't have to pay money for it, no matter how fair the price it. Those pirates are the ones that require legislation to solve.

    Anyway, some more news loosely related to SOPA/PIPA

    The public has started a petition asking the White House to investigate comments made by MPAA CEO Chris Dodd a few days ago on Fox News. Closing a tumultuous week of wide protest against PIPA and SOPA – two MPAA backed anti-piracy bills – Dodd threatened to stop the cash-flow to politicians who dare to take a stand against pro-Hollywood legislation. Clear bribery, the petition claims, and already thousands agree.

    Responding to the mass protests against the PIPA and SOPA bills on Wednesday, the MPAA has revealed its true nature.

    First, MPAA CEO Chris Dodd described the blackouts of Wikipedia, Reddit and others as corporate PR stunts which manipulated and exploited the sites' users.

    "Some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns," Dodd said.

    Then, a few days later when many lawmakers had already dropped their support for the anti-piracy bills, the MPAA's comments turned even more grim. Talking to Fox News, the MPAA's boss threatened to stop contributing to politicians who don't back legislation designed to protect Hollywood.

    "Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake," Dodd said.

    Although it's no secret that the movie industry has a powerful lobby in Washington, explicitly admitting that bribery is one of the tactics the MPAA uses to have their way wasn't well received by the public. A few hours ago a White house petition was started to investigate Chris Dodd and the MPAA for alleged bribery.

    "This is an open admission of bribery and a threat designed to provoke a specific policy goal. This is a brazen flouting of the 'above the law' status people of Dodd's position and wealth enjoy," the petition reads.

    "We demand justice. Investigate this blatant bribery and indict every person, especially government officials and lawmakers, who is involved."

    In just a few hours the petition amassed more than 5,000 votes and this number is increasing rapidly. As a former Senator, Chris Dodd has many friends in Washington so it's unclear whether the petition will accomplish anything, but if the numbers grow big enough the White House won't be able to ignore it either.

    The MPAA's response to the PIPA and SOPA opposition this week is a sign that they might be losing control in Washington. At the very least, they are starting to lose their patience and become frustrated, which may not help their cause at this point.

    Source
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    Just saying, but judging things by the worst that could happen and using that as a basis to not pass a bill or remove it sounds just like the reasoning for why the 2nd ammendment needs to be repealed. In theory it's good because it lets people own guns for protection, but the worst case senario (which you say we should judge bills on) is that we could have people using those guns to murder anyone who looks at them wrong.

    And my above example is why 'what can vs what will' isn't a valid excuse. My example is what can happen, not what will happen.

    No, because it's still illegal to murder despite the second amendment. The second amendment doesn't make murder legal, like my example was meant to show. The worst case scenario for that is that everyone owns a gun, which is arguable whether or not that's actually a bad thing.

    As for being able to murder someone legally, I can't remember what state it was but I remember reading that one state had a law saying you could kill a person and long as you are riding on a wagon and using a specific type of weapon (Can't remember what kind though). It's a left over from the wild west days but it was, at that time, still on the books. It's a obscure law but by now it might have been removed. Either way, I don't remember the site I found that on or how many pages I had to go through to find it. The site was basically a list of stupid laws that states had.

    O...kay? That's relevant somehow I'm sure.

    But as for pass bill, repeal if bad? It's happened before. Does Prohibition ring any bells?

    It shouldn't have. Although that wasn't an issue of "pass although we know X will happen", because the response to Prohibition wasn't related to the legislation's flaws in reasoning or anything such as that. Just because an amendment has been repealed in the past doesn't mean that it was passed under the same logic, "we know that this will give companies endless power to do X, Y, and Z but we'll pass it anyway". The response to Prohibition wasn't something that could be predicted and dismissed by the bill.

    I'm not saying pass every bill. I'm saying that you should not judge a bill based upon what other people say will happen if it passes. Which is what most everyone here is doing. But still, if you read through the entire bill and still hold that opinion then thats fine. At least then its not a result of blinding following someone else.

    I have. I've read the bill and I've read the responses on the bill, I've read what the supporters say (which has so far been something like "yes the bill says that but companies won't actually do it so let's just pass it anyway), and what the detractors say, and what parts of the bill they pull out for scrutiny. And the detractors are right.



    I'll agree. For the most part piracy can be solved as a business-model problem. But your still going to have people pirating material no matter what model a company is using. Steam is a good business-model, but just look at a torrent site and see how many Steam rips you can find. Good model yes, but a number of pirates are still going to pirate it just so they don't have to pay money for it, no matter how fair the price it. Those pirates are the ones that require legislation to solve.

    Yes, and we already have legislation in place for that. The problem is that the industry is so inundated in piracy, and instead of getting rid of the bulk of it through business model means, they're trying to cut into it completely through legislation. If the companies all used the internet to their advantage and catered to consumers instead of expecting them to cater to the companies, then the piracy problem would be cut down to a point where the existing legislation would be able to handle it.

    That last bit of what you quoted in that article is the most important imo. When people become frustrated, they become less and less calculating, more and more desperate, and their situation gets worse. It'll be interesting to see what happens if people keep pushing them.
     
  • 9,468
    Posts
    16
    Years
    Well Megaupload's shutdown has now decimated the Cyber Locker/Easy File Sharing Scene.

    People didn't see the cascading effect until it hit us in the face

    State of Cyber-Lockers (AKA the fandom Walled off into Torrents)

    Megaupload – Closed
    Fileserve – Stopped filesharing. You can only download your own files. Deleting multiple files. Banning Premium accounts. Closed Affiliate Program.
    Filesonic – Stopped filesharing. You can only download your own files. Closed Affiliate Program. Changed server location Jan 22, 2012. Taken down it's Facebook page Now using Digital fingerprinting. Files are being deleted as soon as uploaded (as Hotfile did).
    VideoBB – Closed Affiliate Program.
    Filepost – Started suspending accounts with infringing material (as Hotfile did)
    Uploaded.t... – Blocked U.S. access.
    Videozer – Closed Affiliate Program.
    Filejungle – Owned by Fileserve (same as above). Testing USA IP addresses blocking.
    Uploadstation – Owned by Fileserve (same as above). Testing USA IP addresses blocking.
    4Shared – Deleting multiple files
    EnterUpload - Down (Redirect)

    The only one I know of now is MediaFire. The time to panic is now. [/presses PANIC BUTTON]
     

    U.Flame

    Maker of Short Games
  • 1,326
    Posts
    15
    Years
    Instead of shutting these sites down, they should be monitered Anything illegal should be deleted without the entire site being punished. I hope nothing bad happens to MediaFire. It's one of the only file sharing sites that isn't blocked by my district.
     
  • 3,299
    Posts
    19
    Years
    I'm just waiting for Depositfiles to follow suit. I know I have used that before to get some scanlations. I'll keep an eye on Torrentfreak for more bad news.

    And Netto, the panic button has already pressed and this is only the first wave of changes as the cyber locker era is dead. The Torrent world will be next if Hollywood gets their way. They have the money. They will go after all Torrent sites.
     

    The Void

    hiiiii
  • 1,416
    Posts
    14
    Years
    I'm just waiting for Depositfiles to follow suit. I know I have used that before to get some scanlations. I'll keep an eye on Torrentfreak for more bad news.

    And Netto, the panic button has already pressed and this is only the first wave of changes as the cyber locker era is dead. The Torrent world will be next if Hollywood gets their way. They have the money. They will go after all Torrent sites.

    Why not just lock Torrentz.com itself down? o.O
     

    Mr. X

    It's... kinda effective?
  • 2,391
    Posts
    17
    Years
    And the funny thing is that torrents are close to dead anyway, well, more like obsolete. Magnet Links are the future.

    The inherent flaws in torrents are fixed with Magnet Links. Torrents required a central 'tracker' to point a torrent to a certian file, and to keep track of seeds/leeches and downloads. Magnet links function like torrents, except the entire process is decentralized. You can't kill it but taking out a site.

    But still, for those that are 'deleting multiple files'? I find it strange that they choose now to take a hard stance against pirated uploads. With what happened to MU, looks like they got the message that piracy will not be tolerated.

    As for Filesonic and Fileserve, good. That's what a CL is needed for, remote storage of your files for your usage. Still, the best and safest solution is to burn them to a dvd or back them up on a jump-drive.

    As for sharing with other people, they can implement a password/ID system for validating and tracking downloads.

    Example, person A uploads file to his account. He wants to let a friend download it. He clicks a button that generates a unique DL id for that file. He emails his friend the download link and ID for the file. His friend goes to the dl url, and uses the ID to download that file. Without a ID for a file, you can't download it. After the ID is used, its removed so it can't be used again.

    Edit - As for Hollywood shutting down torrent sites? They have tried numerous times to take out big torrent sites. Pirate Bay is the main example. They. Failed. Every. Time. Yeah, they have taken out a number of smaller and upstart torrent sites, but they haven't had a lot of success with the very large sites.
     

    The Nightmare

    "I fight for what I belive in"
  • 589
    Posts
    13
    Years
    ACTA

    since people protested about sopa and pipa thing that caused websites to black out, there going to be another security system that they going to put online but except its from europe and its also going to be world wide and this one is worst because since sopa/pipa thing does censoring stuff, acta normally fines people for copyright material like images, videos, music, etc.
    not only that they will fine you, they will arrest you if you share downloading links to music or info and they will arrest you if you even download an image that copyright to a company (example: pokemon) and they will also send you to jail if you download an image that is copyright or music and videos, they also watch what your doing if you were on the internet and sometimes they can ban you from the internet for 12 months and they only watch you if your on the internet, the reason why i find this bad is because its going to destroy internet freedom of speech, creativity, and knowlegde, most people don't know this but it is worst than sopa/pipa thing, and the all the countrys will accept the contract to ACTA in april 24th and they will talk about it in private so that the public doesn't know that its actually bad for the internet. There was also another message from anonymous that said they will interupt the goverments in america and europe until april 26th.

    more info here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Xg_C2YmG0

    do you think ACTA is good/bad,why?:
    do you think they should leave the intenet alone?:
     

    The Void

    hiiiii
  • 1,416
    Posts
    14
    Years
    As for Hollywood shutting down torrent sites? They have tried numerous times to take out big torrent sites. Pirate Bay is the main example. They. Failed. Every. Time. Yeah, they have taken out a number of smaller and upstart torrent sites, but they haven't had a lot of success with the very large sites.

    Then why won't Hollywood just shut down the main Torrentz site itself instead? If they shut that down, wouldn't it lead to the at least some other, smaller sites dependent of Torrentz to being shut down as well? Or maybe ban the uTorrentz site (the one where you download the uTorrentz program from)? Without uTorrentz, you obviously wouldn't be able to download any torrents.
     

    Zet

  • 7,690
    Posts
    16
    Years
    Well Megaupload's shutdown has now decimated the Cyber Locker/Easy File Sharing Scene.

    People didn't see the cascading effect until it hit us in the face

    State of Cyber-Lockers (AKA the fandom Walled off into Torrents)



    The only one I know of now is MediaFire. The time to panic is now. [/presses PANIC BUTTON]
    Rapidshare won't be going down any time soon.

    Why not just lock Torrentz.com itself down? o.O
    They can if they want to. The US has full authority over .com websites, but there are also a lot of legal files.

    Then why won't Hollywood just shut down the main Torrentz site itself instead? If they shut that down, wouldn't it lead to the at least some other, smaller sites dependent of Torrentz to being shut down as well? Or maybe ban the uTorrentz site (the one where you download the uTorrentz program from)? Without uTorrentz, you obviously wouldn't be able to download any torrents.
    Hollywood can't do a lot of stuff really. And they can't shutdown the utorrent website because there's nothing illegal. And even if they did, there are still hundreds of torrent programs to use.
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    Then why won't Hollywood just shut down the main Torrentz site itself instead? If they shut that down, wouldn't it lead to the at least some other, smaller sites dependent of Torrentz to being shut down as well? Or maybe ban the uTorrentz site (the one where you download the uTorrentz program from)? Without uTorrentz, you obviously wouldn't be able to download any torrents.

    Torrents are used for legal reasons as well.

    https://gigaom.com/video/ten-sites-for-free-and-legal-torrents/
    https://gigaom.com/video/ten-more-sites-for-free-and-legal-torrents/

    That's like saying "let's ban downloading files from the internet". These torrent sites are basically search engines for the most part. Removing them will not remove illegal torrents, they'd just have to make another site to host the link. Also, there are tons of torrent clients outside of the obvious big 2. uTorrent, bittorrent, xunlei, tribler, ktorrent, rtorrent, etc. I think you should probably look at how torrents and torrent sites work before suggesting solutions because I don't think you're all that familiar with their inner workings. Which is fine but makes it difficult to propose a solution.
     
    Back
    Top