- Thread starter
- #101
Quote:
*sigh* me too.
*sigh* me too.
No No No No No No!!!!
- Thread starter TechnoCat
- Start date
Quote:
*sigh* me too.
no the government is not trying to control the sites.. what they are trying to do is control your access to them...
Right now in Cuba, China, and N Korea the government has control of what its people see, hear, read, the government is blocking what comes into the home is its residents.
I am in Canada and I get it every day.. " your location indicates you cannot have access to this site" and I cant gain access to it.... I mostly get it when I am trying to watch TV online right from NBC or CBS.. ect... I am not trying to download I am following all the links that are on the network site because I missed Criminal Minds last week and now I want to watch it I cant...
*sigh* me too.
no the government is not trying to control the sites.. what they are trying to do is control your access to them...
Right now in Cuba, China, and N Korea the government has control of what its people see, hear, read, the government is blocking what comes into the home is its residents.
I am in Canada and I get it every day.. " your location indicates you cannot have access to this site" and I cant gain access to it.... I mostly get it when I am trying to watch TV online right from NBC or CBS.. ect... I am not trying to download I am following all the links that are on the network site because I missed Criminal Minds last week and now I want to watch it I cant...
Oh my gosh. no no no. This can't be happening. Tell me it's not true!
Quote:
*sigh* me too.
no the government is not trying to control the sites.. what they are trying to do is control your access to them...
Right now in Cuba, China, and N Korea the government has control of what its people see, hear, read, the government is blocking what comes into the home is its residents.
I am in Canada and I get it every day.. " your location indicates you cannot have access to this site" and I cant gain access to it.... I mostly get it when I am trying to watch TV online right from NBC or CBS.. ect... I am not trying to download I am following all the links that are on the network site because I missed Criminal Minds last week and now I want to watch it I cant...
Yeah! I know that those sites really tick me off to
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't quite get it, and didn't read past the first page on this thread.
Why would BYC be affected though?
*sigh* me too.
no the government is not trying to control the sites.. what they are trying to do is control your access to them...
Right now in Cuba, China, and N Korea the government has control of what its people see, hear, read, the government is blocking what comes into the home is its residents.
I am in Canada and I get it every day.. " your location indicates you cannot have access to this site" and I cant gain access to it.... I mostly get it when I am trying to watch TV online right from NBC or CBS.. ect... I am not trying to download I am following all the links that are on the network site because I missed Criminal Minds last week and now I want to watch it I cant...
Yeah! I know that those sites really tick me off to
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't quite get it, and didn't read past the first page on this thread.
Why would BYC be affected though?
Quote:
no the government is not trying to control the sites.. what they are trying to do is control your access to them...
Right now in Cuba, China, and N Korea the government has control of what its people see, hear, read, the government is blocking what comes into the home is its residents.
I am in Canada and I get it every day.. " your location indicates you cannot have access to this site" and I cant gain access to it.... I mostly get it when I am trying to watch TV online right from NBC or CBS.. ect... I am not trying to download I am following all the links that are on the network site because I missed Criminal Minds last week and now I want to watch it I cant...
Yeah! I know that those sites really tick me off to
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't quite get it, and didn't read past the first page on this thread.
Why would BYC be affected though?
BYC would not be affected... some ppl are jumping the gun a lil
no the government is not trying to control the sites.. what they are trying to do is control your access to them...
Right now in Cuba, China, and N Korea the government has control of what its people see, hear, read, the government is blocking what comes into the home is its residents.
I am in Canada and I get it every day.. " your location indicates you cannot have access to this site" and I cant gain access to it.... I mostly get it when I am trying to watch TV online right from NBC or CBS.. ect... I am not trying to download I am following all the links that are on the network site because I missed Criminal Minds last week and now I want to watch it I cant...
Yeah! I know that those sites really tick me off to
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't quite get it, and didn't read past the first page on this thread.
Why would BYC be affected though?
BYC would not be affected... some ppl are jumping the gun a lil
This is a backdoor into the larger idea of controlling the internet for whatever reason, taxes most assuredly and other... The Clintons wanted to tax the Internet remember? Reagan said it best, if the people can build it government can tax it.
Quote:
Jeez, I think I'm having déjà vu . . .
Jeez, I think I'm having déjà vu . . .
Quote:
Obviously, BYC is pretty safe. But do you REALLY think they're going to show enough restraint to only censor illegal material? Why else would this bill be "necessary?" Youtube already tends to remove copyrighted stuff, and companies sometimes get a little too enthusiastic about it as well. While this is minor, I have personal experience with this - one thing that comes to mind are all the Let's Players on Youtube - folks who play through games with commentary. The really popular ones actually make decent money. However, one of my favorites (his LP'ing acts as a part-time job for him) has suffered numerous issues relating to copyright on one of his Fallout Let's Plays, courtesy of a trigger-happy Bethesda. This bill could potentially wreak havoc with them. This says nothing about government's tendency to twist the meaning of their own writings to suit their desires - I foresee a lot of "undesirable" videos being taken down, especially the types that expose various questionable activities in government.
Once again, though, you need to show me where in the Constitution this is permitted. I don't believe Article 1, Section 8 allows Congress to pass such a bill.
do you really think they have the money and man power to go to each and every internet site out there and block what they dont want you to see? I hardly think so.. they are going after the big guns.. the ones that are costing the film and music billions on lost revenue .. lost revenue means lost tax dollars....
this is not North Korea... China... Cuba...
your government really does not care is you are sharing family pics with aunt betty on facebook or are looking at copyrighted pictures of the rare stinky flower...
are there going to be things flagged most likely by mistake... yes... but for the most part IF the bill is passed MOST of the general public will most likely not notice... its the ones that download boat loads of material most of it illegal they will be the ones impacted.
And you really think they wouldn't harass sites like Lewrockwell.com or other libertarian sites? Just click enough links, and I guarantee that you will find sites with copyrighted material, starting from ANY other site. I HIGHLY doubt that copyright infringement is costing "billions" of dollars, and there are already systems in place for dealing with copyright infringement. What the impact of this bill is, is that it would allow the Feds to shut down (yes, shut down) sites with copyrighted material, simply on the basis of the site containing some copyrighted stuff. In other words, if they ever felt it necessary, they could shut down Youtube.
You think they don't have the manpower or resources? You're right, we're not North Korea, Cuba, or China, we're the Monolithic Superstate of Amerika. You really think they WON'T use this bill to harass sites they don't like, especially the really prominent ones? Ron Paul's supporters' many sites come to mind, as do numerous sites that oppose more government power.
Once again, however, the big point that you STILL have not answered: WHERE is Congress granted this power in the Constitution? You can ignore the rest of my post if you want, just answer that one question. On this basis alone I oppose this bill. Even were it super-effecient and totally safe for free speech, I would still be against it, because it is unconstitutional. Prove me wrong.
Obviously, BYC is pretty safe. But do you REALLY think they're going to show enough restraint to only censor illegal material? Why else would this bill be "necessary?" Youtube already tends to remove copyrighted stuff, and companies sometimes get a little too enthusiastic about it as well. While this is minor, I have personal experience with this - one thing that comes to mind are all the Let's Players on Youtube - folks who play through games with commentary. The really popular ones actually make decent money. However, one of my favorites (his LP'ing acts as a part-time job for him) has suffered numerous issues relating to copyright on one of his Fallout Let's Plays, courtesy of a trigger-happy Bethesda. This bill could potentially wreak havoc with them. This says nothing about government's tendency to twist the meaning of their own writings to suit their desires - I foresee a lot of "undesirable" videos being taken down, especially the types that expose various questionable activities in government.
Once again, though, you need to show me where in the Constitution this is permitted. I don't believe Article 1, Section 8 allows Congress to pass such a bill.
do you really think they have the money and man power to go to each and every internet site out there and block what they dont want you to see? I hardly think so.. they are going after the big guns.. the ones that are costing the film and music billions on lost revenue .. lost revenue means lost tax dollars....
this is not North Korea... China... Cuba...
your government really does not care is you are sharing family pics with aunt betty on facebook or are looking at copyrighted pictures of the rare stinky flower...
are there going to be things flagged most likely by mistake... yes... but for the most part IF the bill is passed MOST of the general public will most likely not notice... its the ones that download boat loads of material most of it illegal they will be the ones impacted.
And you really think they wouldn't harass sites like Lewrockwell.com or other libertarian sites? Just click enough links, and I guarantee that you will find sites with copyrighted material, starting from ANY other site. I HIGHLY doubt that copyright infringement is costing "billions" of dollars, and there are already systems in place for dealing with copyright infringement. What the impact of this bill is, is that it would allow the Feds to shut down (yes, shut down) sites with copyrighted material, simply on the basis of the site containing some copyrighted stuff. In other words, if they ever felt it necessary, they could shut down Youtube.
You think they don't have the manpower or resources? You're right, we're not North Korea, Cuba, or China, we're the Monolithic Superstate of Amerika. You really think they WON'T use this bill to harass sites they don't like, especially the really prominent ones? Ron Paul's supporters' many sites come to mind, as do numerous sites that oppose more government power.
Once again, however, the big point that you STILL have not answered: WHERE is Congress granted this power in the Constitution? You can ignore the rest of my post if you want, just answer that one question. On this basis alone I oppose this bill. Even were it super-effecient and totally safe for free speech, I would still be against it, because it is unconstitutional. Prove me wrong.
Quote:
do you really think they have the money and man power to go to each and every internet site out there and block what they dont want you to see? I hardly think so.. they are going after the big guns.. the ones that are costing the film and music billions on lost revenue .. lost revenue means lost tax dollars....
this is not North Korea... China... Cuba...
your government really does not care is you are sharing family pics with aunt betty on facebook or are looking at copyrighted pictures of the rare stinky flower...
are there going to be things flagged most likely by mistake... yes... but for the most part IF the bill is passed MOST of the general public will most likely not notice... its the ones that download boat loads of material most of it illegal they will be the ones impacted.
And you really think they wouldn't harass sites like Lewrockwell.com or other libertarian sites? Just click enough links, and I guarantee that you will find sites with copyrighted material, starting from ANY other site. I HIGHLY doubt that copyright infringement is costing "billions" of dollars, and there are already systems in place for dealing with copyright infringement. What the impact of this bill is, is that it would allow the Feds to shut down (yes, shut down) sites with copyrighted material, simply on the basis of the site containing some copyrighted stuff. In other words, if they ever felt it necessary, they could shut down Youtube.
You think they don't have the manpower or resources? You're right, we're not North Korea, Cuba, or China, we're the Monolithic Superstate of Amerika. You really think they WON'T use this bill to harass sites they don't like, especially the really prominent ones? Ron Paul's supporters' many sites come to mind, as do numerous sites that oppose more government power.
Once again, however, the big point that you STILL have not answered: WHERE is Congress granted this power in the Constitution? You can ignore the rest of my post if you want, just answer that one question. On this basis alone I oppose this bill. Even were it super-effecient and totally safe for free speech, I would still be against it, because it is unconstitutional. Prove me wrong.
wow you are really taking this personally... breathe its going to be ok the sun will rise tomorrow.... and FYI I was not aware I was ordered to answer any of your questions.. I have not debated jack squat with you because you are wayyyyyy to emotional.. if you have anything furter to debate please refrain.. and do NOT PM ME!
do you really think they have the money and man power to go to each and every internet site out there and block what they dont want you to see? I hardly think so.. they are going after the big guns.. the ones that are costing the film and music billions on lost revenue .. lost revenue means lost tax dollars....
this is not North Korea... China... Cuba...
your government really does not care is you are sharing family pics with aunt betty on facebook or are looking at copyrighted pictures of the rare stinky flower...
are there going to be things flagged most likely by mistake... yes... but for the most part IF the bill is passed MOST of the general public will most likely not notice... its the ones that download boat loads of material most of it illegal they will be the ones impacted.
And you really think they wouldn't harass sites like Lewrockwell.com or other libertarian sites? Just click enough links, and I guarantee that you will find sites with copyrighted material, starting from ANY other site. I HIGHLY doubt that copyright infringement is costing "billions" of dollars, and there are already systems in place for dealing with copyright infringement. What the impact of this bill is, is that it would allow the Feds to shut down (yes, shut down) sites with copyrighted material, simply on the basis of the site containing some copyrighted stuff. In other words, if they ever felt it necessary, they could shut down Youtube.
You think they don't have the manpower or resources? You're right, we're not North Korea, Cuba, or China, we're the Monolithic Superstate of Amerika. You really think they WON'T use this bill to harass sites they don't like, especially the really prominent ones? Ron Paul's supporters' many sites come to mind, as do numerous sites that oppose more government power.
Once again, however, the big point that you STILL have not answered: WHERE is Congress granted this power in the Constitution? You can ignore the rest of my post if you want, just answer that one question. On this basis alone I oppose this bill. Even were it super-effecient and totally safe for free speech, I would still be against it, because it is unconstitutional. Prove me wrong.
wow you are really taking this personally... breathe its going to be ok the sun will rise tomorrow.... and FYI I was not aware I was ordered to answer any of your questions.. I have not debated jack squat with you because you are wayyyyyy to emotional.. if you have anything furter to debate please refrain.. and do NOT PM ME!
Quote:
Possibly-- if the owner of the copyrighted images issues a complaint. But that can already happen. Simply: Don't use images that you don't have permission to and you will be okay.
Like what I do is search 'uncopyrighted chicken pictures' and tons come up, I choose one, then I save it to my laptop and use it on my site. That's not bad, is it? Since they aren't copyrighted.
This is an amiable thing to do!! But, while searching 'uncopyrighted photos' will undoubtedly give you photos that are free to use, I have no doubt that other photos will get mixed in as well, photos that are NOT okay to use, because of the way search engines work. It's not quite so simple as searching 'uncopyrighted'.
What you want to do is find truly 'public domain' photos or 'creative commons' photos. These are photographs that the original owners are kindly allowing others to use-- but you must use them in accordance with their terms. The terms will not usually be on the image itself, but on the page where the image is. Creative commons refers to a license that the owner is granting YOU, or anyone that wants to use the image, but in return you must abide by their rules. Some state that you may not use the image for commercial reasons. Some state that you may use it for any reason, but must attribute the owner. Some have other restrictions. It's your responsibility to read, understand, and follow the rules when you use a creative commons image.
Here are a few links to help you if you'd like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources
http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/public-domain-photographs.html
http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/? (scroll down to use their 'creative commons' search)
Possibly-- if the owner of the copyrighted images issues a complaint. But that can already happen. Simply: Don't use images that you don't have permission to and you will be okay.
Like what I do is search 'uncopyrighted chicken pictures' and tons come up, I choose one, then I save it to my laptop and use it on my site. That's not bad, is it? Since they aren't copyrighted.
This is an amiable thing to do!! But, while searching 'uncopyrighted photos' will undoubtedly give you photos that are free to use, I have no doubt that other photos will get mixed in as well, photos that are NOT okay to use, because of the way search engines work. It's not quite so simple as searching 'uncopyrighted'.
What you want to do is find truly 'public domain' photos or 'creative commons' photos. These are photographs that the original owners are kindly allowing others to use-- but you must use them in accordance with their terms. The terms will not usually be on the image itself, but on the page where the image is. Creative commons refers to a license that the owner is granting YOU, or anyone that wants to use the image, but in return you must abide by their rules. Some state that you may not use the image for commercial reasons. Some state that you may use it for any reason, but must attribute the owner. Some have other restrictions. It's your responsibility to read, understand, and follow the rules when you use a creative commons image.
Here are a few links to help you if you'd like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources
http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/public-domain-photographs.html
http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/? (scroll down to use their 'creative commons' search)
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
Hen with runny nostril- Started by AmeraucanaLover 2011
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
Open Contest November Nuttiness, a Random Funny Posting Contest—Official 2025 BYC Mini-Contest- Started by muddy75
- Replies: 221
-
Open Contest Pets with Paws Photo Contest—Official 2025 BYC Mini-Contest- Started by oldhenlikesdogs
- Replies: 162
-
Open Contest Miss BYC Beauty Pageant—Official 2025 BYC Mini-Contest- Started by thecatumbrella
- Replies: 157
-
Open Contest Funny Poultry Faces & Poses Photo Contest—Official 2025 BYC Mini-Contest- Started by azurbanclucker
- Replies: 121
-
-
