PDA

View Full Version : Pointless



Heister
18-01-2012, 03:15 PM
This is pointless > http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/

"Under those new rules, a single errant comment left by a reader could see RPS invisible in the United States, removed from search engines, ad revenue frozen, and thus destroyed. Despite Monday's news that SOPA was shelved, it's now back on the table, and PIPA is just as dangerous."


Ah now I see it.

Flint
18-01-2012, 03:16 PM
This thread probably moreso.

Trees_are_pretty_cool
18-01-2012, 03:18 PM
That's not really the point.

Heister
18-01-2012, 03:19 PM
This thread probably moreso.

The only people/sites concerned about this crap are the ones that'll lose money.

Harlander
18-01-2012, 03:19 PM
What, like Wikipedia?

baboonanza
18-01-2012, 03:24 PM
The only people/sites concerned about this crap are the ones that'll lose money.
That's not remotely the case but even if it was - so what? How would you feel if you'd built up a successful business only to have it threatened by a retarded, evil law in another county?

And your assertion that RPS' stance is purely about ad revenue is idiotic. You know how you can tell that the Hivemind aren't purely motivated by money? They write about videogames for a living!

sabrage
18-01-2012, 03:34 PM
If they were really motivated purely by money, wouldn't they leave their ads and donation boxes up?

RobF
18-01-2012, 03:39 PM
Considering it's ad revenue that allows RPS to exist and the people able to dedicate the time to work here and write posts and stuff when there's no-one else around to pay them... um, yeah, it's no surprise that they'd be concerned about having the main source of income frozen is it?

I could *just* about understand if you thought like some do that it's preaching to the already converted but no, clearly it's something else or you wouldn't have bolded "ad revenue" and said "that explains it"

Where else do you propose the money comes from? Are you going to fork out a wage for them to continue? Do you think however many donations they get a month would even cover the cost of the hosting bill never mind the time and effort required to write all day?

PeopleLikeFrank
18-01-2012, 03:44 PM
If I owned a shop, and it had the potential to be shut down if I served a customer who had a parking ticket, I might shut the shop for a day in protest. Lots of people make their living on the internet, there's nothing wrong with protesting because their livelihood is threatened.

Second, if you'd bothered to read a single article about SOPA posted on RPS, you'd know that the concern extends beyond their own pockets.

Third, since that ad revenue is what enables RPS to exist, and therefore you to read it for free, why are you bitching?

lhzr
18-01-2012, 03:56 PM
huh, so there's no way to block users on the forum or am i missing something? because i'd like to avoid running into lame crap like this in the future.

Unaco
18-01-2012, 03:57 PM
Click name on the left hand side of the post. Choose view profile. From there, along the left hand side, add to ignore list.

lhzr
18-01-2012, 04:04 PM
excellent, thanks

Odeon
18-01-2012, 04:50 PM
If not for ad revenue, the only way for RPS to stay alive would be to charge a subscription fee of some kind. The same is true for YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc., etc., etc., etc., and etc. a million more times for all of the sites that depend on ad revenue generated by an international audience.

Please think about such situations and at least take the time to read the main points of the reasoning for actions like this before creating silly threads. Thankyousomuch.

DigitalSignalX
18-01-2012, 05:15 PM
http://vinteeage.com/product-images/they-see-me-rollin-they-hatin-t-shirt-vintage-t-shirt-review-cotton-factory-cotton-factory-2.gif

vinraith
18-01-2012, 05:18 PM
I'm not sure how effective the protest will be (I tend to think that most RPS readers are already aware of SOPA/PIPA and have an established opinion on it) but I certainly agree with the intent of the blackout.

vecordae
18-01-2012, 05:46 PM
It will be some time before the effect of all of the internet protesting can be accurately measured. It is, however, generating a great deal of interest here in my native land of Ethnia (I am Ethnic, you see). All of the places people go to have fun on the internet have, at the very least, a big obnoxious box on the front telling readers about SOPA. According to CNN (not the most reliable news source) the protests undermining the bills previously solid support base. You can check it out here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/18/tech/sopa-blackouts/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

vinraith
18-01-2012, 05:52 PM
It will be some time before the effect of all of the internet protesting can be accurately measured. It is, however, generating a great deal of interest here in my native land of Ethnia (I am Ethnic, you see). All of the places people go to have fun on the internet have, at the very least, a big obnoxious box on the front telling readers about SOPA. According to CNN (not the most reliable news source) the protests undermining the bills previously solid support base. You can check it out here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/18/tech/sopa-blackouts/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

I did not actually mean to imply that all of the protests seemed ineffective to me, just RPS's. Clearly lots of non-tech-savvy people use, for example, Wikipedia and may be learning about all of this for the first time, or really thinking about ti for the first time, as a result. I wouldn't think RPS would have many readers that fell into that category, though.

Regardless, I certainly hope that CNN article is right, it would be marvelous to see public opinion turn decisively against this crap.

The Innocent
18-01-2012, 06:27 PM
I'm not sure how effective the protest will be (I tend to think that most RPS readers are already aware of SOPA/PIPA and have an established opinion on it) but I certainly agree with the intent of the blackout.

I'd agree about 90% with you, but the other day I was talking to a pair of folks who get on RPS regularly, though not often enough to actually be considered "RPSers," and they had no idea about the SOPA/PIPA stuff. They were appropriately appalled, and now they've become quite involved in signing protests and writing their Congressmen.

And it wasn't an issue of them being ignorant people in general—it was just the case that this was the issue they somehow hadn't heard about. I think RPS gets plenty of traffic in passing, people who might only open up articles that interest them and have been so busy with life that they've missed out on this debate, which hasn't exactly been predominant in the news.

vinraith
18-01-2012, 06:30 PM
I'd agree about 90% with you, but the other day I was talking to a pair of folks who get on RPS regularly, though not often enough to actually be considered "RPSers," and they had no idea about the SOPA/PIPA stuff. They were appropriately appalled, and now they've become quite involved in signing protests and writing their Congressmen.

And it wasn't an issue of them being ignorant people in general—it was just the case that this was the issue they somehow hadn't heard about. I think RPS gets plenty of traffic in passing, people who might only open up articles that interest them and have been so busy with life that they've missed out on this debate, which hasn't exactly been predominant in the news.

Good enough for me. It may be anecdotal, but the rate of return for this to be worthwhile doesn't have to be particularly high IMO.

Smashbox
18-01-2012, 06:49 PM
ad revenue frozen


Ah now I see it.

How is it even possible that you're on this free website completely full of brilliant free content around which a great community has coalesced and complaining about their entire source of revenue? It's ludicrous. I work in the (increasingly internet ad-supported) news industry and I see it becoming more and more difficult to pay for writers and editors every year thanks in no small part to an attitude of cavalier entitlement on the part of readers who've grown accustomed to a seemingly bottomless reservoir of reliable, well-researched, professional, quality editorial content they read for free.

Quality costs money, and RPS's overhead probably isn't too great. Their ads aren't overwrought or intrusive or unreasonable and seeing them is how you pay to be here. The only pointless thing I can see here is a tedious knee-jerk thread clearly posted without any consideration of where you are and the reason you're here.

Odeon
18-01-2012, 07:01 PM
How is it even possible that you're on this free website completely full of brilliant free content around which a great community has coalesced and complaining about their entire source of revenue? It's ludicrous. I work in the (increasingly internet ad-supported) news industry and I see it becoming more and more difficult to pay for writers and editors every year thanks in no small part to an attitude of cavalier entitlement on the part of readers who've grown accustomed to a seemingly bottomless reservoir of reliable, well-researched, professional, quality editorial content they read for free.

Quality costs money, and RPS's overhead probably isn't too great. Their ads aren't overwrought or intrusive or unreasonable and seeing them is how you pay to be here. The only pointless thing I can see here is a tedious knee-jerk thread clearly posted without any consideration of where you are and the reason you're here.
THIS!

Well said, sir. Well said.

vinraith
18-01-2012, 07:13 PM
That was outstanding Smashbox, well done.

It's also worth noting that the "support RPS" button doesn't even work today, which gives you some notion of RPS's commitment to making their point.

archonsod
18-01-2012, 07:16 PM
How is it even possible that you're on this free website completely full of brilliant free content around which a great community has coalesced and complaining about their entire source of revenue?

Piracy. Duh!

Heister
18-01-2012, 08:01 PM
How is it even possible that you're on this free website completely full of brilliant free content around which a great community has coalesced and complaining about their entire source of revenue? It's ludicrous. I work in the (increasingly internet ad-supported) news industry and I see it becoming more and more difficult to pay for writers and editors every year thanks in no small part to an attitude of cavalier entitlement on the part of readers who've grown accustomed to a seemingly bottomless reservoir of reliable, well-researched, professional, quality editorial content they read for free.

Quality costs money, and RPS's overhead probably isn't too great. Their ads aren't overwrought or intrusive or unreasonable and seeing them is how you pay to be here. The only pointless thing I can see here is a tedious knee-jerk thread clearly posted without any consideration of where you are and the reason you're here.

"free website completely full of brilliant free content"

Really? "completely full of brilliant free content". Don't get me wrong, RPS is ok. I mean it's just another site that writes about games right? Info on which is readily available elsewhere.

It seems that those that have something to lose (money in this case) care more than those that don't.

Unaco
18-01-2012, 08:07 PM
It seems that those that have something to lose (money in this case) care more than those that don't.

Damn, now I'm going to have to type something, as I can't just quote someone and leave it at that, even though Heister's own words which I've quoted explain the whole thing.

ColOfNature
18-01-2012, 08:09 PM
It seems that those that have something to lose (money in this case) care more than those that don't.

Whodathunkit?


Edit: ninja'd. I guess I'm not the only one who facepalmed.

vinraith
18-01-2012, 08:11 PM
Really? "completely full of brilliant free content". Don't get me wrong, RPS is ok. I mean it's just another site that writes about games right? Info on which is readily available elsewhere.

It seems that those that have something to lose (money in this case) care more than those that don't.

So, to be clear: RPS isn't important to you, you don't care if it ceases to exist, but you were annoyed enough that it's down for 24 hours to post this thread.

Smashbox
18-01-2012, 08:12 PM
Either I'm missing something, or you're implying that there's something somehow distasteful in the business of web-publishing, that is, it's problematic to attempt to create content and to pay for that content (or heaven forbid, make money, which I can assure you few web publications do on a large scale) using THE website business model (ad-supported).

Or perhaps you're saying that taking a political stance in order to protect the revenue stream of your business is somehow distasteful.

Heister
18-01-2012, 08:16 PM
So to be clear, RPS isn't important to you, you don't care if it ceases to exist, but you were annoyed enough that it's down for 24 hours to post this thread.

I'm far from annoyed mate. It's just not as big a deal to me as it is to those that would lose money over this. That's all I'm saying.

JohnnyK
18-01-2012, 08:17 PM
Really? "completely full of brilliant free content". Don't get me wrong, RPS is ok. I mean it's just another site that writes about games right? Info on which is readily available elsewhere.
Regardless of your opinion of RPS (but why are you even here if you find it so bland?) - sure the general info might be available on other sites, but RPS posts original content, not just c&ps press releases. And I challenge you to find something similar to the "Wot I Think"s and similar anywhere on the web. That's "completely full of brilliant free content" in my book.

It seems that those that have something to lose (money in this case) care more than those that don't.
While I suspect Jim & friends aren't the modern-day equivalent of Robin Hood and opposing SOPA makes also sense on a business level for them, they strike me as the kind of people who also oppose it as internet users.
But that doesn't even matter - SOPA threatens any business that has dealings in the US via a website because it gives US legislation to basically shutdown anyone they want shut down (in the US). And it threatens any internet user's options when it comes to having their voice heard or having access to as many voices as possible.

If you now reply with "but that won't happen, they won't do that", you're disqualified.

Cooper
18-01-2012, 08:24 PM
Heister. I kind of want to congratulate you on being such an excellent troll.

Anyhow. Suggesting RPS' problem with SOPA/PIPA is entirely, firstly, foremostly, primarily etc. because of the potential loss of revenue is to do a massive disservice to the intellect and care exhibited by the staff.

We have John's ongoing analysis of the potential harms of gaming; not just knee jerk reactions against it, nor hysterical claims about it breaking our brains. RPS has become pretty much the only place where this is level of reporting and incisive journalism on this issue exists.

RPS has been at the lead in reporting on the problems with EA forum bans.
They took up the problems with the UK's Digital Economy Bill; something that would have had no effect upon their revenue. The no oceans petition, that was a thing.

Basically, you have a staff of writers who clearly care deeply about the experience of being a PC game player (which includes regular use of the internet), and don't attempt to somehow extract games from their context, but take that context serisouly.

And you suggest this is all about the cash?

Lambchops
18-01-2012, 08:25 PM
Nothing wrong with a business argument to it all anyway (though as Cooper has pointed out this isn't the only angle RPS have taken on it). If I was in the same position as RPS I'd probably take similar action. I think that rateyourmusic.com have presented such arguments in compelling fashion (i'll quote em below). So yeah, it just seems a bit daft that someone who "doesn't care" about the issue has bothered to take the time to imply that there's something wrong with the motives of those who it clearly does affect.


RYM is offline today to raise awareness about the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) and Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) bills which are currently being considered by the U.S. Congress.

As the founder of RYM, I'd like to explain why this legislation would threaten the existence of legitimate sites such as this one.

As most of you know, RYM is a reference site which provides information about music. We feature artist biographies, discographies, user-written reviews, and similar content. There is no music available for download on the site, with the exception of a collection of songs from around 100 unsigned artists who have given us explicit permission.

In addition, we prohibit users from linking to any pirated material, or even to other sites which are dedicated to providing such links. The result is that you won't find any pirated music on RYM, or even through RYM.

Despite our work in making sure RYM only contains legal material, we constantly receive complaints from a small group of misinformed artists and labels who mistake RYM for a piracy/file-sharing site and believe we're somehow making their material available for download. Oftentimes, a simple reply asking them to take a closer look at the site clears things up, but sometimes we are forced to have attorneys respond.

While I wish we wouldn't have to spend time and money responding to these false complaints, it's a situation that is manageable. However, the proposed legislation would change this dynamic in a way that would make it impossible for site owners to defend themselves against such false allegations.

The reason is simple: these bills allow the attorney general and/or third parties to effectively shut down sites like RYM without due process.

If this legislation were passed, any third-party could complain to the attorney general in an attempt to shut down RYM. The AG could then request a temporary injunction against RYM without us being notified or given a chance to defend ourselves against the allegations.

If that wasn't enough, the legislation would grant immunity to any service provider that decides to voluntarily stop providing services to RYM due to their own suspicion of copyright infringement. This gives third parties yet another way to subvert due process; they could simply bully the service providers into voluntarily shutting down a site, and it would usually be in the providers' best interest to do so given the immunity clause.

As I've mentioned above, some copyright holders unfortunately don't understand how the internet works at all. Some of them mistakenly believe that informational sites like Wikipedia are infringing sites. And the government itself has demonstrated that they can often be confused as well. For example, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency shut down a legitimate music site, Dajaz1.com, for over a year.

It therefore makes no sense to allow these parties to make a determination of the legitimacy of a site without input from the site operators themselves.

If RYM were temporarily shut down, it would be devastating to our finances. Running a site that serves 50 million page views per month is expensive. By the time I would be able to contest the shutdown and contact all the services needed to power RYM, I would be thousands of dollars in debt, and there's no guarantee that I would be able to re-establish all of the affiliate/advertising agreements that would be broken as a result of the injunction.

I strongly feel that artists should be properly compensated for their work. But this legislation has little to do with protecting artists and everything to do with taking away fundamental legal protections to those who operate web sites. And legitimate, non-infringing sites that are related to entertainment - such as RYM - will be hurt the most.

Please take a moment to call or write your representatives to voice your opposition to this legislation. If you live outside the US, Wikipedia has information on how you can take action.

Hossein Sharifi
Founder, Rate Your Music
January 18, 2012 #

FuriKuri!
18-01-2012, 08:33 PM
Personally, I quite like the pro-SOPA stance the Daily WTF (http://thedailywtf.com/) is taking.

Lambchops
18-01-2012, 08:43 PM
Personally, I quite like the pro-SOPA stance the Daily WTF (http://thedailywtf.com/) is taking.

The Daily Mash generously provided a Wikipedia replacement service (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/the-mashipedia-emergency-fact-service-201201184781/). 1st fact is the best.

Megagun
18-01-2012, 08:48 PM
But that doesn't even matter - SOPA threatens any business that has dealings in the US via a website because it gives US legislation to basically shutdown anyone they want shut down (in the US).
Only if they use a form of UGC on their website (horrible), they do their business on a website they don't own themselves which does UGC (also horrible), or they themselves use copyrighted material they don't own (not horrible; they deserve to be taken down).

EDIT: material they don't *have a license for*, not material they don't *own*.

Nalano
18-01-2012, 08:56 PM
Check Google's page today.

As for convincing us readers, yeah, RPS is preaching to the choir. But this is bigger than us readers.

I've, personally, felt better ever since the White House basically said "if you send this to us, we'll shred it."

Gerbick
18-01-2012, 09:07 PM
I like The Oatmeal's unique take on the matter


(http://theoatmeal.com/)

Odeon
18-01-2012, 09:12 PM
Ahhh, The Oatmeal. Always classy, and always hilarious. 8-)

Still, he could get taken down in a heartbeat if SOPA or PIPA are passed just for showing images of world-renowned not-licensed-to-use-images-of-or-owned-by DiscountKoalaMeat.com. Very sad days.

JohnnyK
18-01-2012, 09:13 PM
Only if...
That's the thing - that's not all of it. There is no due process, no "only if". Read this:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?2730-Pointless&p=81877&viewfull=1#post81877

Tei
18-01-2012, 09:21 PM
This laws is a serius risk for the internet. If you don't get it, I feel really sad.

Megagun
18-01-2012, 09:24 PM
That's the thing - that's not all of it. There is no due process, no "only if". Read this:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?2730-Pointless&p=81877&viewfull=1#post81877
Ah, I was under the impression that there was a forward notice about getting blocked this way. This does indeed make things a lot worse. Thanks for enlightening me.

PeopleLikeFrank
18-01-2012, 09:31 PM
Clay Shirky does an excellent analysis here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_i dea.html (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ted.com%2Ftalks%2Fdefend_ our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.htm l&h=2AQEw9TnBAQEWvioPHOEQUEsnzYBzHnautCF3sllHkeMyPg)

Basically a total reversal of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

archonsod
18-01-2012, 09:34 PM
And it threatens any internet user's options when it comes to having their voice heard or having access to as many voices as possible.

Well, only if you're a US citizen, DNS for EMEA and APNIC are now done in their respective territories. Though it would be nice to think it might give the world the push it needs to decentralise the infrastructure entirely; given IPv6 officially gets it's 'launch' this year there's even a suitable cause.

SirKicksalot
18-01-2012, 09:34 PM
This shitty thread is like the RPS version of herpderpedia (https://twitter.com/#%21/herpderpedia). Please take a look at that.

PeopleLikeFrank
18-01-2012, 09:37 PM
This shitty thread is like the RPS version of herpderpedia (https://twitter.com/#!/herpderpedia). Please take a look at that.

AGghghg! Stupidity... sapping... will... to live...

Odeon
18-01-2012, 09:51 PM
This shitty thread is like the RPS version of herpderpedia (https://twitter.com/#!/herpderpedia). Please take a look at that.
That stream of twatty idiocy on Twitter is why I avoid it like the plague. But in this case, it demonstrates two things even more than this thread does:

1. Too many people don't know dammit about their own country and its proposed laws (nor the existing ones, I'm sure). There are many reasons for this, but the primary one? Fat-assed laziness.
2. These blackouts are doing exactly what they were designed to do: cause the brainless masses to see what's going on right under their noses.
It also demonstrates how badly people procrastinate when it comes to getting homework done, but that's another discussion.

Let's hope that enough people get the point and are willing to do something about it to the point that SOPA/PIPA have zero chance of passing.

Edit: Here's a link with some other information about getting both defeated: http://sopacountdown.com/

SirKicksalot
18-01-2012, 10:04 PM
2. These blackouts are doing exactly what they were designed to do: cause the brainless masses to see what's going on right under their noses.


I'd say it backfires spectacularly in a certain demographic - '90s kids! Looks like they'd rather bitch on Twitter and blame Obama than read the blackout page of Wikipedia.

To be fair I believe that page is poorly written. Earlier today I got into an argument on another forum because I suggested a replacement message which I believe it gets the point across better. Herpderpedia seems to confirm my suspicions - the current message is too boring and vague for the general audience.

Edit: of course it's unfair to judge based on the worst examples. However I'm sure a scary number of people are going to be annoyed rather than motivated by this blackout.

PeopleLikeFrank
18-01-2012, 10:07 PM
To be fair I believe that page is poorly written. Earlier today I got into an argument on another forum because I suggested a replacement message which I believe it gets the point across better. Herpderpedia seems to confirm my suspicions - the current message is too boring and vague for the general audience.

"SOPA means you'd have to go to the library to do your homework."

SirKicksalot
18-01-2012, 10:12 PM
If you'd send these kids to the library today they'd be angry that Wikipedia doesn't work there either.

I wish Facebook joined the protest. Imagine the riots and hilarity!

Roufuss
18-01-2012, 10:16 PM
I wish Facebook joined the protest. Imagine the riots and hilarity!

Right on.

You want to get the message across? Blackout Facebook and Twitter and see what happens. Wikipedia is nice and all but it pales in comparison to what a Facebook blackout would do.

But if you blacked out Facebook and Twitter, how would we even be able to read the riots and hilarity?

And that link? Wow.

vinraith
18-01-2012, 10:17 PM
I wish Facebook joined the protest. Imagine the riots and hilarity!

Hell, I'd pay to watch that. That said, even the rednecks at the grocery store were talking about the Wikipedia blackout, so it's certainly not going unnoticed.

Smashbox
18-01-2012, 10:19 PM
Agreed - Facebook should have put its money where its mouth is (easy for me to say). That would probably be the biggest possible website protest (unless Google turned off search - then the world would grind to a halt).

vinraith
18-01-2012, 10:22 PM
Agreed - Facebook should have put its money where its mouth is (easy for me to say). That would probably be the biggest possible website protest (unless Google turned off search - then the world would grind to a halt).

Yeah, although a Google shutdown would just give Bing a bunch of new customers. No one's going to go to the trouble of rebuilding their social network elsewhere just because of a one day Facebook blackout, on the other hand, and they'd sure as hell notice it.

Roufuss
18-01-2012, 10:30 PM
I posted this in another thread that got buried, but there is a new movement starting asking video game news sites, along with developers and publishers against SOPA, to not support E3, as it is one of the ESA's biggest revenue streams. Kind of a "hit them where it hurts" deal (which is ESA's wallet) by not covering E3 or withdrawing out of it as long as the ESA supports SOPA.

I think the Firefall developer has already pulled out of E3 and is one of the companies behind this movement.

It will be interesting if RPS, who is staunchly against SOPA and the ESA's support of it, will also take part.

The JG Man
18-01-2012, 10:46 PM
Personally, I quite like the pro-SOPA stance the Daily WTF (http://thedailywtf.com/) is taking.

The Daily Mash generously provided a Wikipedia replacement service (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/the-mashipedia-emergency-fact-service-201201184781/). 1st fact is the best.

I like The Oatmeal's unique take on the matter (http://theoatmeal.com/)

Amazing. Even at the very threat of being broken, the internet just gets more creative and brilliant.

As for E3, I can easily see the RPS team not going if ESA remains with their stance. Besides, all they'd really lose would be a few hours before the press releases get sent out with relevant trailers.

Whatever, SOPA and PIPA are bad news wherever you are in the world. It's all about precedent; the western world will unquestionably follow if they get through. That would be immensely lame.

JohnnyK
18-01-2012, 10:48 PM
Well, only if you're a US citizen, DNS for EMEA and APNIC are now done in their respective territories.
Directly, yes. But RPS is the prime example of a site that would suffer even though it's not in the US - and if it was blocked would lose a sizeable portion of its userbase, reinforcing my point. If RPS gets blocked in the US, I have fewer forum posts to read, and fewer people read my forum posts. Very dumbed-down example, but still.

PeteC
18-01-2012, 10:53 PM
The only people/sites concerned about this crap are the ones that'll lose money.

I disagree and would like to think they're concerned with the broader ramifications of this bill (as well as losing money) but could you give your reasons as to why being concerned about how a law in another country would hit you in the pocket is a bad thing?

I don't really understand why you seem so pissed off about this.

archonsod
18-01-2012, 11:49 PM
If RPS gets blocked in the US, I have fewer forum posts to read, and fewer people read my forum posts. Very dumbed-down example, but still.

The point being there's no requirement in US law that a US ISP utilises it's own DNS service as far as I know, which makes for a rather large loophole in the law. After all, hard to implement DNS style blocking if you've outsourced your DNS service to Mexico.

zookeeper
19-01-2012, 12:04 AM
huh, so there's no way to block users on the forum or am i missing something? because i'd like to avoid running into lame crap like this in the future.

Unfortunately, this is all part of the free and open internet that's being fought for. And...




Really? "completely full of brilliant free content". Don't get me wrong, RPS is ok. I mean it's just another site that writes about games right? Info on which is readily available elsewhere.

It seems that those that have something to lose (money in this case) care more than those that don't.

Uhh... erm...




Fuck it. Maybe it's not worth saving.

Nalano
19-01-2012, 12:08 AM
The point being there's no requirement in US law that a US ISP utilises it's own DNS service as far as I know, which makes for a rather large loophole in the law. After all, hard to implement DNS style blocking if you've outsourced your DNS service to Mexico.

It's not so much that I, the user, will be blocked from this site. The workarounds are already well-documented.

It's that, due to the loss of advertising money, the site will likely not be there for me (or you) to peruse.

Smashbox
19-01-2012, 12:13 AM
I've lost access to the internet from my ISP for using openDNS. Pages just stopped working until I changed back to the default DNS.

sabrage
19-01-2012, 12:20 AM
Heister. I kind of want to congratulate you on being such an excellent troll.
This one gets it. I'm not sure why the rest of the post was even necessary.

Roufuss
19-01-2012, 12:20 AM
Didn't realize Walker called out Joystiq on Twitter too -- good show, Mr. Walker. I'll cut and paste for those who don't twitter:

" Let me stress - Joystiq have been *incredible* in their coverage of SOPA/PIPA. They inspired all of mine. Today is disappointing."

" Talking of bogus, Joystiq's reasoning here is nonsense: http://aol.it/w2zNkq. It is not "silence" to replace your site with SOPA info."

Not to mention that Ben Gilbert, a Joystiq writer, also wrote that "a one day blackout doesn't do much but annoy your users." I lost a lot of respect for that site today but gained a lot for John and RPS (I already had a lot before, but still.)

Today saw three co-sponsors of SOPA / PIPA drop support, so it seems today's blackouts did more than just annoy a few people.

Odeon
19-01-2012, 12:55 AM
I was really hoping for blackout participation by Facebook and Twitter too. Imagine the size of that Fail Whale!

It's too bad that they opted out, but I supposed that makes it easier to spread the message since those are the places people will keep going to try to find out what's happening. At least, the ones that don't bother reading the exact message telling them why their favorite site is blocked out in the first place. 8-/

Grizzly
19-01-2012, 07:51 AM
Redox... GTFO.

Tams80
19-01-2012, 09:25 AM
Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows what the RPS readers know about SOPA and PIPA. There are probably some who don't and now hopefully do. For RPS though, it was probably more about the principle; standing up for what they believe to be right and having solidarity with others who oppose SOPA and PIPA. As RPS is a web based entity and the proposed bills will affect the web, they probably feel it is right for them to oppose said bills.

ANyway, you don't own the site, so nah.

Heliocentric
19-01-2012, 09:49 AM
Twitter & Facebook will suffer the hardest if these laws occur. So stupid of them to not protect themselves given their immense power.

soldant
19-01-2012, 10:20 AM
Twitter & Facebook will suffer the hardest if these laws occur. So stupid of them to not protect themselves given their immense power.
There'd be a parade of "Y CNT I FACEBOOK OMFG F U FB UR GEY" and so on if that happened. I was kind of hoping that Facebook and Twitter et. al. would jump on the bandwagon too, if only to piss off a ridiculous number of people while raising awareness at the same time. But then I remind myself that most of them really wouldn't care outside of not having access to the 24/7 gossipdiet, and seems largely pointless.

Heliocentric
19-01-2012, 11:12 AM
There'd be a parade of "Y CNT I FACEBOOK OMFG F U FB UR GEY" and so on if that happened.
But where would they write it? Myspace?

soldant
19-01-2012, 11:42 AM
But where would they write it? Myspace?
On their flesh, with hot knives!

hamster
19-01-2012, 12:54 PM
Ah, I was under the impression that there was a forward notice about getting blocked this way. This does indeed make things a lot worse. Thanks for enlightening me.

You have to contact the AG and you can bet he'll check the facts first. Even if he doesn't, temp injunctions, though ex parte, don't just materialize from thin air - you need to at least demonstrate you have a chance of succeeding on the merits. This means, for example, demonstrating that the material in question is something you actually have a copyright on.

The "facilitating" stuff is too broad though. I wouldn't want an American court to interpret that. Should be Congress that specifies what is and what isn't. I think the entire rationale behind SOPA is ultimately to shift some of the costs of enforcement to site owners rather than copyright holders as well as extending the territorial reach of local (American) copyright legislation. Personally i agree with the stance that site owners should be more responsible for user submitted content but they shouldn't be wholly liable for the works. The DMCA "takedown notice" on the other hand may be a little too lenient. Perhaps a middle ground could be reached by incorporating the takedown notice with a formalized system for doling out penalties depending on % infringements per time period. So for example, if rapidshare has 20% of its traffic being infringing material over say, a 4 month period, rapidshare would be liable to put into a pool a % of its profits. Then the pool could be divided and awarded to right holders. Some of the costs of discovery could also be shifted to the government i.e. government agency assists right holders in investigation and enforcement. As for territorial reach, costs could also be redeemed from the respective country's government depending on the origin of the copyrighted material.