Stop U.S. Internet Censorship. Sign the Petition

sleepy

Pinball Wizard
Site Supporters
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
4,066
Solutions
17
Reaction score
591
Points
140
Favorite Pinball Machine
Titanic Hospital
The SOPA and PIPA bills now before Congress expect to halt piracy by enforcing police state censorship tactics, including pulling sites, servers and whole search engines offline.

Today, January 18, 2012, many websites and Internet Services will be going black from 6 A.M. to 6 P.M. to protest these measures.

You can lend your voice in objection to these proposals by signing the petition, here:

https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
 
This is one of the type of issues that everyone agrees with, but many still don't want to see happen, for a number of reasons, all personal. It is going to happen, to some degree, and it of course should happen to whatever degree it takes to bring the problem to a head. If the internet can not be used for commerce without being abused to any problematic point, and we are so above that point, then the internet needs some martial law.
 
It is an issue which 2 sides of the fence. At least I have not heard of anyone on the fence.

I am of course on the same side of the fence as you, 'Oz, as I rely on copyright infringement to fuel my gaming fix as far as classic arcade and pinball games. The people on our side could be disappointed, but we would not be hurt. Not in any legal, moral, or ethical sense anyway. I don't believe you think this is wrong, I would not believe anyone.
 
Of course bootlegging Avatar online from the .ru on its theatrical premier release week was a pretty good promotional gimmick. Such gimmicks will not disappear with the law, but I have to question the matter of law when someone is sharing a rare out-of-print song and suddenly the long-lost artist jumps up and cries foul.

The pirating is a problem of currently available commercial media, barring promotional gimmicks, not lost treasures so to speak.

Damn, I wish I could burn some grass right now.
 
Last edited:
Democracy DOESN'T work. IT SUCKS.:appl:
 
so megaupload got shut down, the principals are facing decades in prison, and the hacker group "anonymous" responded by DOS'ing the record industry, music industry and justice.gov websites.

i wonder if these media industries really think they can shut down piracy or whether it's just a logical step for them to push back and see how much leverage that gains them? actually, i would guess the latter. still, the quality of the internet could certainly suffer if the battlefronts shift a bit...

better finish downloading those ST episodes... whoop whoop!


Democracy DOESN'T work.
democracy in particular doesn't work?

heh, i don't think any system of civilisation works. all of them are unstustainable by their nature and all fall, sooner or later.
 
I tend to think the latter as well. A means to an end though.
...
That because they all have an element of anarchy working with or against the ideal. Pure anarchy would never fall.

You are some of the many that would complain to e-bay and others that VP was being offered up. Sometimes going as far as having content removed. Like I said. Everyone is against it, meaning for the intent of the bill, depending on the shoes.
 
heh, i don't think any system of civilisation works. all of them are unstustainable by their nature and all fall, sooner or later.

Yeah, government/law by nature grows and gets more and more complicated and intrusive with time, hard to imagine of a system that could avoid that....
 
Such sites (Google,Aol,etc that oppose) say the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is all that is needed and they comply with it. That is where holders put notice to a site and a site takes that article down.

This is obviously untrue, or there would not be this big of a problem.

Perhaps a shoring up of that legislation would be a good process. Where all major IP holders and content creators (each music studio, for all it's artists, each movie studio, book publisher, etc. with a given representation for all its ip contributers, actors, writers, musicians, etc. give a notice to each web space provider to not host that content.

That's the way it is of course, but it is the way it is suppose to be, meaning, it should not be necessary. What it needs perhaps it easier and faster response.

The government has to be involved. If it was not, or if it was not doing the most it could, it would be not be doing it's duty.

The government could be as tough as it may want to be under a stronger DMCA, but it would be a singling out of culprits and not blanket action toward a site where it occurred. And the sites where this is the sole intent of their existence.

Opponents of SOPA would be against anything of course, as anything that worked would put the screws to online piracy.

I want your IP, but I don't want you to have mine is bad enough, but I have seen worse here in the VP community, where it's often 'I've converted that other's IP to me, and you have no right to use my IP', while continuing to use others IP. Just imagine if the IP really was yours.

-----------------------------------------
No Mods
 
Pinball heads allowing VP/VPM, even encouraging it, would not be enough. Their products contain expired licenses. Sound and music mainly to worry about.

As a fan of VP and the community, I am on the same page. But being banned for what others did, or just the fact that this content is not made available to me puts me on another page. If I can not have access to the content at VPF, which all that is there that I would want is IP that no one there owns, then I would hope that that site is the very next to fall, and pester anyone that has the power to do it.
 
No. The SOPAs and such are a display of the arrogance of the industry.
You do realize that The Internet is backed by Hollywood money, right?
When a film like Avatar is online "from the .ru" the first week of its release, it is no accident.

My concern is that the Hollywoods of the world do what they want to without Ethics or consideration for any fucking IP but their own.
I want the government to level the playing field by keeping things Official by Our Rights instead of Hollywood doing it this way this year,
and that way next year,
and black and white is gray,
so you have no say...
...about your IP...
...unless you're a corp.
 
No film has been bootlegged by accident... ever.

Few are not online the first week and a few before release even.

Blaming the very industry, or entity of it, now, falls flat.

My point is the same as your next one, that people are concerned about their own IP, and the point before, the concern about IP that they call their own, when everyone, including themselves understand is not. VP re-creators strive to not even include any IP but to make it as close to the original IP as they can and cry foul if it is modded, sold, or even shows up on a site they did not put it. These people are all for SOPA, and beat the very same drum a long time ago. They want someone else's cake, and to eat it too, but this act is not about that side. It's about the other side. Many people want to be on bot sides, having their stuff, even if it is not there stuff as far as IP, protected, but unrestrained access to other peoples stuff.
 
The problem is of the ignorance of the intent of copyright.

[SIZE=+2]Origin of Copyright[/SIZE]
Our Constitution states that "The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

<hr> [SIZE=+2]The Intent of Copyright Protection[/SIZE]

  • is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts,
    • so authors get a mini-monopoly as one inducement to develop new work,
    • but copyright is limited when it appears to conflict with the overriding public interest of encouraging further development;
  • is not to promote the author's own interests or increase the author's own wealth.
IP is not forever and should never be considered something anyone can own forever.
 
Now this is a Bootleg, and No, it's no accident:

BHC.jpg


It's a scan from a bootleg cover that I found on top of the local apartment dumpster.
This was found the first week the film was released in theaters, and it is typical around here for brand new films to be "sold door-to-door", to obscure the underground lifestyle that many industry people lead to protect their privacy.
When it's somebody from Hollywood bootlegging the screeners so that the underground community can "buy them from a door-to-door peddler" so as not to be identified by outsider neighbors as a member of the industry by having "official screeners" around their home, no problem.
If an outsider acquires one of these bootleg screeners and turns it in to the piracy office of the MPAA, the MPAA ignores it. It's an inside thing.

When Hollywood itself does the piracy, it is ignored when it is Hollywood controlling the bootlegging. I also have a bootleg copy of Gran Torino with the Academy warning subtitled on the video stating that This Academy screener is serialized and traceable by watermark to identify the source of any bootlegs should the screener be copied.
It doesn't matter when Hollywood does it.

When Hollywood rips a concept or plot from an outsider who is not working in the industry, well that's just the way they do things.
But when it's somebody ripping Hollywood, well that's different.
 
Of course it's different.

'Oz this is about copyright, meaning that which falls under the definition.

It may be legal to re-summit the theory of relativity, under your name, but besides being stupid, even if no one came out and said it was wrong to do so, would not mean it was right to do so. It is legal to copy a famous painting, but it would be illegal to sell it if you said it was the real thing. Time has NOTHING to do with it.

Litigation is not as simple as the summery, and never is. You are confusing patents with copyright. No one can ever claim to have written something they did not, not even after the copyright has expired. You are confusing ownership with a right to quote, reference, and be made available with proper credits intact.
 
The point of copyright and patents is to make ideas not be owned, but it does give you an exclusive for a number of years. The reason for this is because people can come up with the same ideas, and these ideas are rarely fully original. Band-aid for example was not the first bandage, and because someone packaged them nicely, made them easy, and fast, self sticking, etc., well they are granted an exclusive on the product, as is, for some time. We all have no doubt though that if band-aid did not exist, the same product would have been created anyway.

I'm not sure Band-aid was the first, but it does not change the point.

Henry Williams (Sherwin Williams) was indeed the first to sell premixed paint. Before this you bought power and mixed it with water or oil. These are things and no one would say they should have an everlasting exclusive. Being the first with things (most things) is rewarded, but no acknowledgement that being first is the reason for existence is given. That dutch boy was probably thinking the same thing. Movies, music, art, writings, games, and the like, these are IP, something that would never come to exist like the 'things', and though can fall into the public domain at some point, can not fall into another's ownership.

This is really neither here nor there though because it is about copyright (something that by definition is current and standing). It is about something licensed for one thing being used for another, something even the licence holder can not do.
 
Last edited:
'Oz, I bet it would surprise you that copyright is renewable, and transferable, and most often are. Patents no.

No?

Well after your post, I know it will surprise you that an expired copyright, even on something that is in the public domain, is.


Edit:
copyright
Basically 95 years I think. There were revisions in the 70s. I think at one point is was life plus 50 years. The point above though was failing to register a renewal, at the time limit it was public domain, and now you do not have to register. So basically as I understand it, it stands at a lifetime, and is basically a given for that lifetime.

Have you ever checked the copyright on a classic novel for example? You wont find one. You will find a long list of them. A slight content un-altering revision to the package, font, sleeve, etc., a transfer, and a copyright can last FOREVER.
 
Last edited:
Ever hear the story of why "Night of the Living Dead" is in the public domain?
The story goes that "The Rank Organization" as distributor re-titled the film and forgot to include the copyright notice in the print. In doing so, the film was automatically released to the public domain.

I'm thinking it's only spin, but the continued status of the film as "public" is supposedly due to the laws being different in '68. Under current law, the creator can still file the copyright after release, a copyright is assumed by simply stating the intent to maintain one's Rights in a public release of a material prior to filing for a copyright, and the actual creator of the material, be it concept or full plot, song, or documents of method, can file a copyright in dispute against any copyrights which have been filed by the usual Hollywood suspects.
In which case, only the original creator retains control of the material, if and when he/she can prove the claim.
 
If this problem occurred under the '68 law, then the copyright would have needed to be registered. It could be that failing to print it voided it, assuming it was registered, but I doubt it. If they failed to register it and to print it, then perhaps. It would not be that way it is today, as I understand it, having their name on it would copyright it. Plus that could easily be mitigated.
 
The problem is with current movies, games, and music. That is why this should be supported. To not do so would be taking the chance of another bill emerging which just drives the screw to the bottom.

It's not a bad bill, and would be a righteous act. It just needs a remedy that would allow content providers that are trying to have that chance to at least pull things that are not shady but blatant.

The alternative is for the government to look at the files of each individual that is posting content. Then you would be saying 'what have WE done?'
 
It's bad bill because it removes the presumption of innocence...


<iframe src="
" allowfullscreen="" width="560" frameborder="0" height="315"></iframe>
 
It's based on evidence of guilt.

People are not presumed innocent when they are arrested. They are suspected, or presumed, and often known to be guilty. The presumption of innocence is a tool for the jury, that is used to have guilt proven to them.

Megaupload as a first strike is telling, I think. Why not something like the pirate bay? I think it's to show that they are out to stop piracy, which is done by people, and not web sites. I doubt they expect to have to take any action against something as blatant as the pirate bay. Of course they should not have needed to take action against megaupload.

If there was a way to catch murders during the act, then many people would complain. because the murderers would be treated in a way that non murderers are not.

And how about fraud? Should it be legal for a site to sell you something and not deliver. How long are you going to 'presume' that they will? Should it not be stopped, because someone it did not happen to presumes they are innocent.

And why should anyone even argue for criminals not being sought out?

A site is not going to be closed if they are 'presumed' to have illegal content. They are going to be closed if they do.

Steve. You, yourself pulled a couple of my mods (of tables that had stated in the script, as well as the release thread that they were free to mod). Why? because you are an asshole, just looking for something to pass time? I don't think so. I think you thought you were doing your job. Forget the point that this was not PacDude's IP in the first place, or that they were marked and remarked as being free to mod. Just the fact that you pulled them does not suggest, but proves that you support censorship, are very strict about IP, and guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it.

I like you 'Oz. I am calling you a hypocrite, but I, like most people, are as well, so it is no reason to not like you. Like I said this is an issue that most people jump fence depending on which side their stuff is on, and which side other peoples stuff is on. It's just impossible to stay on the side of your stuff to guard it and be on the other side taking stuff at the same time.

People know which side of the fence they should STAY on, They just don't want to.
 
REF : http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...d-says-record-labels-are-real-criminals.shtml

In the indictment, the government seems to assume that paid accounts are clearly all about illegal infringing works. But that's not always the case. In fact, plenty of big name artists -- especially in the hip hop world -- use the paid accounts to make themselves money. This is how they release tracks. You sign up for a paid account from services like Megaupload, which pay you if you get a ton of downloads. For big name artists, that's easy: of course you get a ton of downloads. So it's a great business model for artists: they get paid and their fans get music for free. Everyone wins. Oh... except for the old gatekeeper labels.

In fact, this is part of the ecosystem, especially in the hip hop world. It's why the artists also support those hip hop blogs that the RIAA insists are dens of pure thievery. The artists release their tracks to those blogs, knowing they'll get tons of downloads -- and actually get money. If they do deals with labels, they know they'll never see a dime. Putting music on Megaupload is a way to get paid. Working with a gatekeeper is not.

And yet... Megaupload is the criminal operation? Seems like the actual artists know otherwise.

What Busta is pointing out is that services like Megaupload -- while it may be run by some sketchy individuals and probably crossed the legal line in some cases -- are actually a great new business model for artists, while also being the future of distribution. It's a great way to distribute, make money, and let fans get the works for free. And that's why the major labels are so freaked out by cyberlockers. It's not because there's so much infringement on there, but because it's a system whereby artists can get paid and can better distribute their own works to fans... without signing an indentured servitude contract with a label, which never pays any royalties.

Did Megaupload break the law? Perhaps. But it seems clear that the real fear on the part of the RIAA and the major labels is not so much about that. It's the recognition that such a distribution and payment system undermines much of their reason for existing, and takes away their ability to control artists. A smart label would learn to embrace these things. But we're talking about the major labels here, and so instead, they run to the US government -- who clearly knows nothing about the way modern artists monetize and distribute music -- and lets them try to paint a picture of just how "evil" services like Megaupload are.

But the artists know better.
Those mods were removed at request of the original visual pinball table creator, end of story.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
You can interact with the ChatGPT Bot in any Chat Room and there is a dedicated room. The command is /ai followed by a space and then your ? or inquiry.
ie: /ai What is a EM Pinball Machine?
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    maxangelo19 has left the room.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    Dragonslapper has left the room.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    royaljet has left the room.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    Tyfox has left the room.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    Goldtopboy has left the room.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    slick267 has left the room.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    dabreeze has left the room.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    Spike has left the room.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    Tofa has left the room.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    Atropine has left the room.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    bongo2k5 has left the room.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    Bouly has left the room.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    Felipefx3 has left the room.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    djrbx has left the room.
  • F @ freebird1963:
    were do music and sound files go
    Quote
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    jhbradley has left the room.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    Conejazo has left the room.
  • Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs:
    Sedulous has left the room.
      Chat Bot Mibs Chat Bot Mibs: Sedulous has left the room.
      Back
      Top