No No No No No No!!!!

[TechnoCat]

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.

I can't prove you wrong. Exactly WHERE did Congress gain power to control the Internet? There are too many of us internet users. Q9, you're not taking it personally, and you aren't emotional about this. I take your side and agree with you. Dar, just back off a little, Q9's right. Let's try not to fight, okay?

 

[HollyBird24]

Quote:
Peep have you even read this thread?

 

[HollyBird24]

Quote:
I hate those sites too!

BTW, Criminal Minds is the best show ever

 

[TechnoCat]

Quote:
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)

Thank you, Nambroth. You're being SO nice about this. I'm not good with the Internet and all. I knew some pictures that were copyrighted would get mixed up in there.
Thanks!

 

[Dar]

Quote:
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.

I can't prove you wrong. Exactly WHERE did Congress gain power to control the Internet? There are too many of us internet users. Q9, you're not taking it personally, and you aren't emotional about this. I take your side and agree with you. Dar, just back off a little, Q9's right. Let's try not to fight, okay?

who are you to tell me to back off?

easy there i did back off and you drugged it up again... when someone caps lock something they are yelling... I do not take kindly to being yelled at for trying to defuse the over reacting people here....

 

[TechnoCat]

Quote:
I can't prove you wrong. Exactly WHERE did Congress gain power to control the Internet? There are too many of us internet users. Q9, you're not taking it personally, and you aren't emotional about this. I take your side and agree with you. Dar, just back off a little, Q9's right. Let's try not to fight, okay?

who are you to tell me to back off?

easy there i did back off and you drugged it up again... when someone caps lock something they are yelling... I do not take kindly to being yelled at for trying to defuse the over reacting people here....

Sigh. I'm just gonna stop. I have an overacting tendancy. Sorry to both.

 

[BrattishTaz]

Quote:
x2

x3 and I started this thread...

SCM, I had to chuckle a bit at how well you took my comment. Kudos to you. I see you have calmed down.....much better.

 

[Nambroth]

Quote:
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)

Thank you, Nambroth. You're being SO nice about this. I'm not good with the Internet and all. I knew some pictures that were copyrighted would get mixed up in there.
Thanks!

No problem. I know that copyright is very tricky and it's not common knowledge. I think that most people that infringe upon copyrights by using materials that they are not supposed to aren't intentionally trying to cause any harm! They just don't know better. I am a visual artist and so I try to take this into mind when people use my work without permission. Most of the time people aren't trying to hurt me or my business, they just didn't know better... a lot of people mistakenly think that any image on google or the internet is 'public domain'. I think it's much more useful to educate and help people understand, and to guide them to where they can actually find legit free images to use.. than to yell at them.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
I can't prove you wrong. Exactly WHERE did Congress gain power to control the Internet? There are too many of us internet users. Q9, you're not taking it personally, and you aren't emotional about this. I take your side and agree with you. Dar, just back off a little, Q9's right. Let's try not to fight, okay?

who are you to tell me to back off?

easy there i did back off and you drugged it up again... when someone caps lock something they are yelling... I do not take kindly to being yelled at for trying to defuse the over reacting people here....

Gotta agree with Dar here...

Though, Dar, I would still appreciate it if you could show me where this bill is permitted by the Constitution.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
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!

Emotional? I'm a freakin' bastion of restrain compared to most people. Aside from emphasizing points with caps (Would you prefer italics? I can do that, I just used caps 'cause they're quicker,), I fail to see how I am doing anything but raising perfectly logical points. How am I taking it personally? You haven't said anything to take personally, to my knowledge. If you're going to defend this bill, though, you need to address the Constitutional aspect of it.