DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Business of Photography >> Your views on SOPA
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 81, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/12/2013 11:06:38 AM · #1
Do you think its a necessary step to stabilize the industry of digital content? As well as create new ones? Do you think it will ever get off the ground?
03/12/2013 11:25:36 AM · #2
SOPA was bad and they were never going to get it to fly so they've gone around it. It's now called the 6 strikes policy. There are no courts, there are no exceptions, and it's really messed up.

//readwrite.com/2013/01/12/how-the-new-six-strikes-anti-piracy-scheme-could-ruin-public-wifi

Message edited by author 2013-03-12 11:27:19.
03/12/2013 11:26:24 AM · #3
Oh no, don't start this lot off. Delete this thread quick.
03/12/2013 11:31:07 AM · #4
I've already gotten a strike from Comcast because one of my son's friends was here and used my wifi on his laptop that had bit torrent running.
03/12/2013 11:34:36 AM · #5
i'm against it simply because its redundant (we already have DMCA) and gives too much power to the copyright holders to effectively censor the internet. Lets face it, what we as photographers and artist view as copyright the movie and recording industry view as another, yes they loses millions but that is assuming that those millions would have been earned in the first place.

I know I and others aren't out to squeeze every penny from the market, if you use my picture, ask or pay me, if not, don't use it. the movie and record industry assume everyone wants heir products and will pay. the consumers don't work that way, if they don't want to pay for something they don't and move on without it if it isn't available, its all about getting utility out of your dollar. Just because something is available doesn't mean they would have paid for it in the first place.

the solution to their problem inst restricting access, its making the content easily and readily available for a fair price. Look at how Apple revolutionized the music industry. they gave consumers what they wanted, which was per song pricing in he format that worked well for them. do the same for tv and movies instead of trying to squeeze out top dollar.

03/12/2013 11:34:55 AM · #6
Originally posted by Tiny:

Oh no, don't start this lot off. Delete this thread quick.


Yes. These stupid people here will talk about this like they care.

Clearly Tiny has the right idea, if we just ignore problems, and avoid talking about them, they will clearly just cease to exist.

At least the apathetic don't mind.
03/12/2013 11:43:45 AM · #7
Originally posted by mike_311:


the solution to their problem inst restricting access, its making the content easily and readily available for a fair price. Look at how Apple revolutionized the music industry. they gave consumers what they wanted, which was per song pricing in he format that worked well for them. do the same for tv and movies instead of trying to squeeze out top dollar.


I can't wait for HBO to figure this out, it's near impossible to legally get their content.
03/12/2013 12:03:37 PM · #8
the recording industry was against itunes in the beginning when they wanted to keep pushing record sales and then they realized it was much easier to have easy access to high bitrate songs you want and pay a buck for them than to search through crappy rips. the made money hand over fist and now realizxe that internet radio is a great market.

now the movie industry wants to force everyone into the box office instead of giving the consumer what they want, availability to watch it wherever and whenever they want, in their home theaters, on their laptops, etc.

i like to have my movies on my home server so i can watch them on any tv. so now tell me whats easier, wait for a bluray to come out, buy the bluray, illegally rip it and copy it to my server (which takes 1-1.5 hrs) and these are about 25-20GB a piece. or can i just go to bitorrent and download a bluray rip that is about 7gb already in the format i need for free when it is still in theaters.

for the record i don't illegally download any longer, i take the convoluted process of waiting, buying ripping.

do you see my point? i would clearly pay a fair price to save myself the time and effort and have it available right away, the bad part for them is, im in the minority.

Message edited by author 2013-03-12 17:13:24.
03/12/2013 02:23:11 PM · #9
I like the itunes concept. But its really difficult to access services like this outside of the US.

As for the 6 strikes policy. I guess their trying to pass on some of the responsibility to the service users. Isn't this kinda similar to responsibility for firearms? Since you cant just leave firearms around for misuse.

And are most of you saying we don't need more controls, we just need reform of the current controls?
03/12/2013 03:05:15 PM · #10
Originally posted by dmadden:

I like the itunes concept. But its really difficult to access services like this outside of the US.

As for the 6 strikes policy. I guess their trying to pass on some of the responsibility to the service users. Isn't this kinda similar to responsibility for firearms? Since you cant just leave firearms around for misuse.

And are most of you saying we don't need more controls, we just need reform of the current controls?


From everything I've read, the 6 strike thing is basically a fail proof way to sue the consumer. It's a way for the ISP's to turn over your info on what you do on the internet to the large corporations. Anyone remember the RIAA lawsuits? I remember some nightmare stories.
03/12/2013 04:52:29 PM · #11
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1518/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_995150.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1518/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_995150.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
03/12/2013 05:04:35 PM · #12
sopapilla?!

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
03/12/2013 05:09:23 PM · #13
Originally posted by Kelli:

From everything I've read, the 6 strike thing is basically a fail proof way to sue the consumer.

Maybe the acronym should just be SOP (to the industry) ...

What I want to know is, given how often we've witnessed TV stations (and newspapers) appropriating photos without permission, will they be subject to losing their FCC license after six violations?

Message edited by author 2013-03-12 17:09:50.
03/12/2013 05:15:50 PM · #14
Originally posted by dmadden:


And are most of you saying we don't need more controls, we just need reform of the current controls?


make sit easier and more worthwhile to buy than to steal and they will fix the problem.
03/12/2013 05:32:12 PM · #15
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Kelli:

From everything I've read, the 6 strike thing is basically a fail proof way to sue the consumer.

Maybe the acronym should just be SOP (to the industry) ...

What I want to know is, given how often we've witnessed TV stations (and newspapers) appropriating photos without permission, will they be subject to losing their FCC license after six violations?


No, the stations are run by corporations, who sponsor the government officials. The government is not going to bite the hand that pays them off.

Message edited by author 2013-03-12 17:33:24.
03/12/2013 06:00:45 PM · #16
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Kelli:

From everything I've read, the 6 strike thing is basically a fail proof way to sue the consumer.

Maybe the acronym should just be SOP (to the industry) ...

What I want to know is, given how often we've witnessed TV stations (and newspapers) appropriating photos without permission, will they be subject to losing their FCC license after six violations?


No, the stations are run by corporations, who sponsor the government officials. The government is not going to bite the hand that pays them off.


You can pretty much guarantee they'll only be going after individuals and small business. Remember the 12 year old the RIAA sued? The problem comes in with wifi. If someone gets on your wifi, you are responsible for what they do.

eta: Comcast will be charging a $35 fee to fight a false alert.

Message edited by author 2013-03-12 18:01:58.
03/12/2013 06:25:17 PM · #17
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
03/12/2013 08:14:49 PM · #18
Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Kelli:

From everything I've read, the 6 strike thing is basically a fail proof way to sue the consumer.

Maybe the acronym should just be SOP (to the industry) ...

What I want to know is, given how often we've witnessed TV stations (and newspapers) appropriating photos without permission, will they be subject to losing their FCC license after six violations?


No, the stations are run by corporations, who sponsor the government officials. The government is not going to bite the hand that pays them off.


You can pretty much guarantee they'll only be going after individuals and small business. Remember the 12 year old the RIAA sued? The problem comes in with wifi. If someone gets on your wifi, you are responsible for what they do.

eta: Comcast will be charging a $35 fee to fight a false alert.


the false alert has no real penalty, if you get 6 you are doing something wrong. with wifi, ignorance is no defense, for more than this reason you ought to have control over who accesses and what they do on your network. if someone downloads child porn on your pc i imagine that will cause much more headache than one false strike out of six. :)
03/12/2013 08:41:50 PM · #19
Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Kelli:

From everything I've read, the 6 strike thing is basically a fail proof way to sue the consumer.

Maybe the acronym should just be SOP (to the industry) ...

What I want to know is, given how often we've witnessed TV stations (and newspapers) appropriating photos without permission, will they be subject to losing their FCC license after six violations?


No, the stations are run by corporations, who sponsor the government officials. The government is not going to bite the hand that pays them off.


You can pretty much guarantee they'll only be going after individuals and small business. Remember the 12 year old the RIAA sued? The problem comes in with wifi. If someone gets on your wifi, you are responsible for what they do.

eta: Comcast will be charging a $35 fee to fight a false alert.


the false alert has no real penalty, if you get 6 you are doing something wrong. with wifi, ignorance is no defense, for more than this reason you ought to have control over who accesses and what they do on your network. if someone downloads child porn on your pc i imagine that will cause much more headache than one false strike out of six. :)


Child porn??? Where did that come from?

My problem with it is this, my son is 13. He's a good kid, no drugs, no smoking, no drinking. And he's on the geeky side. So, he has a group of kids come over with their laptops to play computer games. In order for them to do this they all need to log into my wifi. So this new 6 strike thing will force me to be the wifi police. I'll need to check their laptops, make sure they don't have any illegal software and don't have bit torrent downloaded or running (which btw, isn't illegal, there is plenty of legal content on bit torrent). I have a problem with that. So my choices are tell my son his friends are no longer welcome to come play games in my home, where I know what they are doing or let my son go to someone else's house where the parents may or may not care what's going on or make him stay home alone. And all this because even though the outrage of the masses prevented SOPA from being passed, the ISP's took it upon themselves to make up their own form of it.
03/12/2013 09:35:05 PM · #20
Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Kelli:

From everything I've read, the 6 strike thing is basically a fail proof way to sue the consumer.

Maybe the acronym should just be SOP (to the industry) ...

What I want to know is, given how often we've witnessed TV stations (and newspapers) appropriating photos without permission, will they be subject to losing their FCC license after six violations?


No, the stations are run by corporations, who sponsor the government officials. The government is not going to bite the hand that pays them off.


You can pretty much guarantee they'll only be going after individuals and small business. Remember the 12 year old the RIAA sued? The problem comes in with wifi. If someone gets on your wifi, you are responsible for what they do.

eta: Comcast will be charging a $35 fee to fight a false alert.


the false alert has no real penalty, if you get 6 you are doing something wrong. with wifi, ignorance is no defense, for more than this reason you ought to have control over who accesses and what they do on your network. if someone downloads child porn on your pc i imagine that will cause much more headache than one false strike out of six. :)


Child porn??? Where did that come from?

My problem with it is this, my son is 13. He's a good kid, no drugs, no smoking, no drinking. And he's on the geeky side. So, he has a group of kids come over with their laptops to play computer games. In order for them to do this they all need to log into my wifi. So this new 6 strike thing will force me to be the wifi police. I'll need to check their laptops, make sure they don't have any illegal software and don't have bit torrent downloaded or running (which btw, isn't illegal, there is plenty of legal content on bit torrent). I have a problem with that. So my choices are tell my son his friends are no longer welcome to come play games in my home, where I know what they are doing or let my son go to someone else's house where the parents may or may not care what's going on or make him stay home alone. And all this because even though the outrage of the masses prevented SOPA from being passed, the ISP's took it upon themselves to make up their own form of it.


the child porn came as an example of what could go wrong from not securing your network, it was simply a warning. you must maintain control of your network because guess who takes the blame when something happens on it.

c'mon Kelly, stop blaming the ISP for your lack of willingness to control you network, you are the parent right? wh would youlet teenager have free reign to the internet through your network. imagine IF they were doing something devious.

btw, you can block all that stuff in the firewall if you choose, let them explain why they need access to those sites.

Message edited by author 2013-03-12 21:36:58.
03/12/2013 09:38:58 PM · #21
Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Kelli:

From everything I've read, the 6 strike thing is basically a fail proof way to sue the consumer.

Maybe the acronym should just be SOP (to the industry) ...

What I want to know is, given how often we've witnessed TV stations (and newspapers) appropriating photos without permission, will they be subject to losing their FCC license after six violations?


No, the stations are run by corporations, who sponsor the government officials. The government is not going to bite the hand that pays them off.


You can pretty much guarantee they'll only be going after individuals and small business. Remember the 12 year old the RIAA sued? The problem comes in with wifi. If someone gets on your wifi, you are responsible for what they do.

eta: Comcast will be charging a $35 fee to fight a false alert.


the false alert has no real penalty, if you get 6 you are doing something wrong. with wifi, ignorance is no defense, for more than this reason you ought to have control over who accesses and what they do on your network. if someone downloads child porn on your pc i imagine that will cause much more headache than one false strike out of six. :)


Child porn??? Where did that come from?

My problem with it is this, my son is 13. He's a good kid, no drugs, no smoking, no drinking. And he's on the geeky side. So, he has a group of kids come over with their laptops to play computer games. In order for them to do this they all need to log into my wifi. So this new 6 strike thing will force me to be the wifi police. I'll need to check their laptops, make sure they don't have any illegal software and don't have bit torrent downloaded or running (which btw, isn't illegal, there is plenty of legal content on bit torrent). I have a problem with that. So my choices are tell my son his friends are no longer welcome to come play games in my home, where I know what they are doing or let my son go to someone else's house where the parents may or may not care what's going on or make him stay home alone. And all this because even though the outrage of the masses prevented SOPA from being passed, the ISP's took it upon themselves to make up their own form of it.


the child porn came form not securing your network, it was simply a warning. you,ust maintain control of your network because guess who takes the blame when something happens on it.

c'mon Kelly, stop blaming the ISP for your lack of willingness to control, you are the parent right?

btw, you can block all that stuff in the firewall if you choose, let them explain why they need access to those sites.


I think you missed a part. My network is secure. And no one uses my computer. They all bring their own. And yes, I'm the parent, but only of my own child. I shouldn't have to examine the computers of my son's friends. Your kids are still small Mike, so you don't really have much knowledge of parenting a teenager (which isn't the same as once being one). I wish you luck when you get there.
03/12/2013 09:45:25 PM · #22
Originally posted by Kelli:



I think you missed a part. My network is secure. And no one uses my computer. They all bring their own. And yes, I'm the parent, but only of my own child. I shouldn't have to examine the computers of my son's friends. Your kids are still small Mike, so you don't really have much knowledge of parenting a teenager (which isn't the same as once being one). I wish you luck when you get there.


To be fair, I think you missed a part - the part where your network isn't secure at all.

If you're letting these kids on the network, and aren't restricting their access at the firewall level, they are able to transfer any data type, over any service.

Chatroulette and Torrents are only the beginning of the fun.
03/12/2013 10:00:53 PM · #23
I don't like the idea of six strikes at someone else's whim. I do have my wifi password protected. However suddenly I am responsible for what another does with it? If I loan my neighbor a hammer, am I guilty if he uses it to break into a house? At least in the case of a neighbor, I would know who borrowed the hammer. In the case of Kelli, how does she know which child abused her trust?

The industry could not stop piracy, even with all their money and resources. Now suddenly, they want to make it my job... And I get six whole tries to get it right... Nice...
03/12/2013 10:06:22 PM · #24
Originally posted by ambaker:

Now suddenly, they want to make it my job... And I get six whole tries to get it right... Nice...


Plus you have no chance to defend yourself. You are tried in absentia, and your punishment is handed down to you from your overlords. All bow before the master class who own the rights to access the internet.
03/12/2013 10:07:13 PM · #25
Originally posted by ambaker:

I don't like the idea of six strikes at someone else's whim. I do have my wifi password protected. However suddenly I am responsible for what another does with it? If I loan my neighbor a hammer, am I guilty if he uses it to break into a house? At least in the case of a neighbor, I would know who borrowed the hammer. In the case of Kelli, how does she know which child abused her trust?

The industry could not stop piracy, even with all their money and resources. Now suddenly, they want to make it my job... And I get six whole tries to get it right... Nice...


Especially when it's been proven that there are repeatedly false accusations.

HBO wants google to censor HBO! I find this both hilarious and scary.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/19/2021 05:16:19 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/19/2021 05:16:19 PM EDT.