cheddargirl wrote:
Pecola1 wrote:
Greenatic wrote:
It means they censor copyrighted material. *ahem* Songs in Scratch projects *ahem*Scratch should be fine, fair use protects it...
Well, it might not be. Based on what I'm reading in the bill, if someone decides that there is some content on on a website deemed to be copyright infringement, then the website is censored.
So it makes me wonder what happens when someone like Namco-Bandai comes along and makes a big fuss of a kid's project. Seems to me like the whole Scratch website could be censored automatically due to a DCMA notice based on the bill.
Then we form a rebellion!
Offline
JJROCKER wrote:
cheddargirl wrote:
Pecola1 wrote:
Scratch should be fine, fair use protects it...Well, it might not be. Based on what I'm reading in the bill, if someone decides that there is some content on on a website deemed to be copyright infringement, then the website is censored.
So it makes me wonder what happens when someone like Namco-Bandai comes along and makes a big fuss of a kid's project. Seems to me like the whole Scratch website could be censored automatically due to a DCMA notice based on the bill.Then we form a rebellion!
Yay
Offline
From what i see this bill was... voted on before, and it didn't pass. So lets not get too afraid about this, its time to calm down.
Offline
You guys aren't listening to me.
You all have only seen the side of the people against it! You have not seen the side of the people who are writing the bill.
People don't go out of their way and write a long bill for weeks for no reason! I'm sure they have their reasons too.
Offline
cheddargirl wrote:
Pecola1 wrote:
Greenatic wrote:
It means they censor copyrighted material. *ahem* Songs in Scratch projects *ahem*Scratch should be fine, fair use protects it...
Well, it might not be. Based on what I'm reading in the bill, if someone decides that there is some content on on a website deemed to be copyright infringement, then the website is censored.
So it makes me wonder what happens when someone like Namco-Bandai comes along and makes a big fuss of a kid's project. Seems to me like the whole Scratch website could be censored automatically due to a DCMA notice based on the bill.
The whole website!? Even when its justs a few projects, a small fraction of the website!? It does make me think of the Namco-Bandai thing from a while ago...
Offline
JJROCKER wrote:
You guys aren't listening to me.
You all have only seen the side of the people against it! You have not seen the side of the people who are writing the bill.
People don't go out of their way and write a long bill for weeks for no reason! I'm sure they have their reasons too.
LOL ive looked for it but havent found anything, you try posting something from their side.
Offline
Wickimen wrote:
JJROCKER wrote:
cheddargirl wrote:
Well, it might not be. Based on what I'm reading in the bill, if someone decides that there is some content on on a website deemed to be copyright infringement, then the website is censored.
So it makes me wonder what happens when someone like Namco-Bandai comes along and makes a big fuss of a kid's project. Seems to me like the whole Scratch website could be censored automatically due to a DCMA notice based on the bill.Then we form a rebellion!
Yay
Indeed. This law may cause complete silence over the internet. One portion of the website with copyrighted material or whatever used (probably a handful of prpjects) causes the whole website to be censored, even when there are a majority of good and original projects that are just dismissed... just doesnt seem fair to me...
Last edited by a1130 (2011-11-16 22:35:08)
Offline
Pecola1 wrote:
From what i see this bill was... voted on before, and it didn't pass. So lets not get too afraid about this, its time to calm down.
What? *exhales* Not passed? but I thought that it was... Pending and going to be passed.... tommorow.
Offline
if this gets past, it ends freedom of the most popular method of communication in America. Big Brother is watching!
Offline
a1130 wrote:
Pecola1 wrote:
From what i see this bill was... voted on before, and it didn't pass. So lets not get too afraid about this, its time to calm down.
What? *exhales* Not passed? but I thought that it was... Pending and going to be passed.... tommorow.
Wiki wrote:
The PROTECT IP Act is a re-write of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA),[5] which failed to pass in 2010. A similar House version of the bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)[6] was introduced on October 26, 2011.[7]
It is a re write that means it was slightly changed but most likely will not have much change to what it REALLY means.
Last edited by Pecola1 (2011-11-16 22:43:02)
Offline
CheeseMunchy wrote:
Who isn't?
I would emote raising my hand but I don't do that kind of thing
Offline
Hang on, just read this: "would allow the government to force Internet service providers to deny service to web sites that host pirated material -- even if those sites were hosted overseas".
So the US government can do stuff like that to places out of the US?
Offline
werdna123 wrote:
Hang on, just read this: "would allow the government to force Internet service providers to deny service to web sites that host pirated material -- even if those sites were hosted overseas".
So the US government can do stuff like that to places out of the US?
The sites are only blocked FOR the US.
In canada you could still use scratch if it was blocked in the us.
Also btw, it says "pirated material" scratch doesn't pirate.
Sooooooo...
Offline
werdna123 wrote:
Hang on, just read this: "would allow the government to force Internet service providers to deny service to web sites that host pirated material -- even if those sites were hosted overseas".
So the US government can do stuff like that to places out of the US?
Based on the bill, if the Internet Service Provider is based in the US, then they cannot let anyone using their service to see websites containing pirated material regardless of where the website is hosted. (In other words, if the US can't shut down a website because it is hosted overseas, then they'll prevent people in the US from viewing it).
It probably won't affect Internet Service Providers outside the US, though, from viewing websites from other countries.
Offline
Offline
sci_test wrote:
Against, even though I'm in Israel.
And even though you used your test account.
Offline
Daroach1 wrote:
P-Cupcake wrote:
I'm against it in every way possible. DOWN WITH THE BILL!!
(not the science guy, he's cool)*presses nuke button and bill blows up* Happy?
NOOO NOT BILL NYE D:>
Offline
P-Cupcake wrote:
Daroach1 wrote:
P-Cupcake wrote:
I'm against it in every way possible. DOWN WITH THE BILL!!
(not the science guy, he's cool)*presses nuke button and bill blows up* Happy?
NOOO NOT BILL NYE D:>
Not Bill Nye. The censorship bill!!! Bill Nye is alive
Offline
JJROCKER wrote:
People don't go out of their way and write a long bill for weeks for no reason! I'm sure they have their reasons too.
Yeah, about that...ever heard of lobbyists?
Offline
XGamer42 wrote:
Greenatic wrote:
MrMokey wrote:
Is this in canada?
No, it's in the US.
Actually, the article said that it counts for all sites, even ones overseas
He means it only affects Americans, anyone out of america will still be able to view sites blocked in america.
Offline