The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Net regulation

V

Vivek

Guest
Wikipedia and many others are protesting bills under consideration before the US Congress.

Right now, Wikipedia blackened out their pages with this:

Imagine a World
Without Free Knowledge

For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia.
These bills if they become the law in the US would have serious implications to the modern communication everywhere in general and would have a big impact on the photo sharing sites.
 

Amin

Active member
I agree. Honestly, this kind of legislation could lead to the elimination of sites like GetDPI.
 
Last edited:

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Actually, a lot of the yelling about this is related to the degree one trusts the government. I have severe doubts that it might actually affect this website after looking at the proposed legislation.

I am fundamentally opposed to this as well as all of the regulations that have or are being proposed for the net including all the "net neutrality" stuff. The Obama administration has exerted unprecedented control over the web without acts of Congress. They just do it exerting some theory about executive or regularity power.
As a W3C member and member of its advisory board I would point out that the net's vitality depends on unfettered use and experimentation.
All of this government stuff just needs to stop.

The issue these bills are trying to solve with these blunt axes relate to the sheer scale of digital media piracy which can happen is just moments by the net. I agree that this is a problem, one of moral bankruptcy of the individuals who do it, but the bad actors are people and not sites. Why they expec the government to be enforcers is unreasonable to me.

I am especially opposed to government interference with the dns system.

If digital media holders wish to pursue their complaints, there is the court system which ought to be utilized. Of course, the digital media copyright owners will say that this is too expensive and impractical. Of course it is. There are alternatives for original media such as digital rights management, but users find that unfriendly, which is true, but which may be necessary. Once the digital genie has been let out of the bottle, you can't put it back.

These bills are only the tip of the iceberg and because they are in congress, they are visible.
They are bad, bad precedents, and not the role of the government of a free people, that is if we remember what that was supposed to be.
So to the whole shooting match and all branches of governments anywhere "KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR WEB"
-bob
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I've blacked out photos on my flickr stream in support of the anti-legislation bill.

Freedom, liberty, it's always a fight. The true price of liberty has always been blood. Without the willingness to shed blood for it, it is already lost.
 

monza

Active member
Actually, a lot of the yelling about this is related to the degree one trusts the government. I have severe doubts that it might actually affect this website after looking at the proposed legislation.

I am fundamentally opposed to this as well as all of the regulations that have or are being proposed for the net including all the "net neutrality" stuff. The Obama administration has exerted unprecedented control over the web without acts of Congress. They just do it exerting some theory about executive or regularity power.
As a W3C member and member of its advisory board I would point out that the net's vitality depends on unfettered use and experimentation.
All of this government stuff just needs to stop.

The issue these bills are trying to solve with these blunt axes relate to the sheer scale of digital media piracy which can happen is just moments by the net. I agree that this is a problem, one of moral bankruptcy of the individuals who do it, but the bad actors are people and not sites. Why they expec the government to be enforcers is unreasonable to me.

I am especially opposed to government interference with the dns system.

If digital media holders wish to pursue their complaints, there is the court system which ought to be utilized. Of course, the digital media copyright owners will say that this is too expensive and impractical. Of course it is. There are alternatives for original media such as digital rights management, but users find that unfriendly, which is true, but which may be necessary. Once the digital genie has been let out of the bottle, you can't put it back.

These bills are only the tip of the iceberg and because they are in congress, they are visible.
They are bad, bad precedents, and not the role of the government of a free people, that is if we remember what that was supposed to be.
So to the whole shooting match and all branches of governments anywhere "KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR WEB"
-bob
Well said.

Not pleased that the sponsor of SOPA is from my area.
 

Amin

Active member
Actually, a lot of the yelling about this is related to the degree one trusts the government. I have severe doubts that it might actually affect this website after looking at the proposed legislation.
It is unlikely to affect this particular website, but it could. This legislation would hold site owners responsible for all content. Say that Jack decided to host this site on a UK server (many photo forums use Global Gold) and someone registers here and posts a photo that belongs to Getty. Getty could then request that access to the server for GetDPI be blocked, and bam: No one in the US can access GetDPI.

I've decided to black out my two most-viewed sites for the day.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
There is a lot of mis-information circulating about these bills.
What they basically attempt to do is to extend the same powers that are already exerted by US Regulators within American borders to those web sites that are "off-shore". They would achieve this extra-jurisdictional power through filtering at the border.
If you remember there have been over the last two years unprecedented seizures of web domain names by the US government of those sites within its borders that the government believed violated the copyright laws. This was done by the Obama administration before trial and before judgement.
It is disturbing to me that the government sees its role as the protectors of only selected forms of private property. I don't support it on-shore, and not off-shore either.
Protestors are mis-guided in their narrow focus on these bills. The bigger issue is that the net ought to be beyond the unilateral control of the executive branch of the government or the congress. THAT is the problem and is aggravated by FCC actions via regulation of those things that the administration could not get congress to support.
-bob
 

monza

Active member
Yes, this would pretty much shut down most forums. And the wording of this bill is outrageous...there is no due process. Welcome to the People's Republic...
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
It is unlikely to affect this particular website, but it could. This legislation would hold site owners responsible for all content. Say that Jack decided to host this site on a UK server (many photo forums use Global Gold) and someone registers here and posts a photo that belongs to Getty. Getty could then request that access to the server for GetDPI be blocked, and bam: No one in the US can access GetDPI.

I've decided to black out my two most-viewed sites for the day.
The US government already have control of this site via FCC regulation. These bills only apply to off-shore sites.

Both are wrong, but we are already screwed on this forum unless we change the presidency in the upcoming election.
-bob
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, this would pretty much shut down most forums. And the wording of this bill is outrageous...there is no due process. Welcome to the People's Republic...
No, the bills apply to off-shore forums only.
We are, as I said, already screwed these bills or not.
-bob
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I ought to change the name of this thread from Net Regulation, which the Executive branch does on its own, to Net Legislation, which is an action of Congress.

We already have the regulation these bills attempt to extend those to off-shore sites.
-bob
 

stephengilbert

Active member
"Both are wrong, but we are already screwed on this forum unless we change the presidency in the upcoming election."

Right. I'm rooting for Rick Santorum, a man committed to freedom of thought and expression.
 

Amin

Active member
No, the bills apply to off-shore forums only.
We are, as I said, already screwed these bills or not.
-bob
We also serve as an example for many other countries. If other nations pass their versions of SOPA, then they could cut of access to our sites in the US on a country by country basis. It's a huge mess.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Bob, do you know where these FCC regs are posted?
This is how it works in the US.
1) media owners complain
2) FCC monitors and collects data, determines locale of domain and site
3) List goes to the Dept of Justice who obtains a court order to seize domain names.
domain registrars are presented with the order
-done-
Oh, and after a year or two, if you are very lucky, you can get those domain names back.
The issue with this behavior is that there is no specific adjudication of any violation until AFTER the seizure. So in November of 2011, 130 domain names were seized in a wholesale sweep. Only a few have gone through the process to clear their names all the while being out of business.

There is also the net neutrality regulation that is a wolf in sheep's clothing as it for the first time gives the FCC control over the flow of information on the net. Yes it is neutral, but neutral in the eyes of the government. This was the camel's nose under the tent. The FCC chose to regulate the net without an act of congress which had no chance of passing. The Senate at the time had no belly to stop it.

Here are some recent events
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...indexed-from-google-twitter-bing-facebook.ars
and
http://torrentfreak.com/feds-seize-130-domain-names-in-mass-crackdown-111125/
All it took was "support" from the FCC and the Justice department and a sympathetic judge.

What is needed is actually a Congressional bill that reads something like.
No branch of government may take any action with regard to pre-emptive satisfaction of complaints of copyright holders unless those complaints have been brought to trial and a judgement rendered.

but it cuts both ways.

The digital copyright act includes the concept of take-down notice which even some of us have used against offenders when our personal material was mis-appropriated. These ought to be the primary method that media owners use against violations and if no action is taken, then take the suspects to court, but by the copyright owner, not the government.

If the site is off-shore, then the one thing I think may be appropriate is to permit requests for extradition for trial. At least we don't need to invent anything new with potential unanticipated consequences.
-bob
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I ought to change the name of this thread from Net Regulation, which the Executive branch does on its own, to Net Legislation, which is an action of Congress.

We already have the regulation these bills attempt to extend those to off-shore sites.
-bob
Sounds better, Bob.

Me being a non US citizen is only concerned about how it affects the global traffic.

Yes, even with my limited knowledge of the US laws, I understand the actual powers and the accrued ones are far reaching.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Amin, I am glad that you posted Sal Khan's link. That initiative (Khan's academy) is the one I had in mind the foremost as an example of net freedom. I am hoping to volunteer for them when I get a chance.

Regulations/legislations such as this from a certain perspectives (ie., money and profit) take the measures to the extreme and chip away the basic rights of any human being.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I don't think you have this right, Bob. Lots of people studying this legislation say otherwise. Here's Sal Khan's explanation: http://www.khanacademy.org/video/sopa-and-pipa?playlist=American+Civics
No, the professor and I agree entirely, however I think, as do our attorneys, that his interpretation is overly broad and a bit alarmist. Some of what he now claims as an extension to powers is not much really (concerning the bits about inhibiting investigation of potentially illegal activity) is what exists today and is called "obstruction of justice".

The biggest gripe I have is that the law attempts to legitimize the current behavior of the current US government. Currently it is doing exactly this by seizing domain names and demanding that search engines remove sites. This has been done through court order which are not that hard to obtain What the bill does is provide immunity to the claimants which is an extension to that which exists today but not when the claimant is the government itself.

In November 130 domain names were seized without explicit support of legislation. They are already doing it, hell, this administration does not seem to think it needs laws.

Much of the hand-wringing concerning US sites IMO is over milk spilt long ago by both regulation and legislation and backed up by the courts. "Injunctive relief" is often sought if claimants feel that there is a continuing act that damages them and unless the claim is fraudulent, there is no recourse.

The bill is unnecessary, unfortunately apparently, within the US Borders since the acts describes are ALREADY routinely done.

What is needed instead perhaps, if folks want to take this piracy stuff seriously, is to extend the copyright treaties that currently exist. Currently copyright enforcement practices vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. What this bill does really is mainly extend US powers to those actors who lie beyond US jurisdiction.

So I will restate once again "These bills need to be defeated" and even more important than that, the US needs to be restrained from its current practices some way.

If rights owners feel that they are damaged in some way, they ought to seek relief in the courts of the appropriate jurisdiction.
-bob
 
Top