Should we take a tougher stance to combat online copyright? [ENDS 05/02/2012]

[Grig]

Should we take a tougher stance to combat online copyright?
Ends: 05/02/2012

Online copyright has always been a thorny issue. There has been recent backlash over a proposed congress bill to tackle online piracy and copyright. People were stating that it intrudes on personal freedom and liberty that should not be meddled in. Whilst the recent closing of Megaupload due to the amount of copyrighted material available for users to freely download. Many were also unhappy on how radically bills such as SOPA were proposed, covering almost everything from movies to even the most simple images and pictures. This they say could have a devastating effect on the net as a whole, particularly well established picture sharing sites such as Flickr and social networking ones such as Facebook.

However, those in the entertainment industry were said to loosing millions in revenue due to people simply not paying for movies and songs, in which artists loose out too and all this lost revenue is affecting them. Furthermore, search engines sometimes even promote such websites.


Here's a basic video on how this battle has progressed in quite simply, yet interesting terms:



So the question posed here is whether we should take a tougher stand on other such sites that distribute copyrighted material such as www.thepiratebay.org and what not. Or whether we should lax these rules even further and simply not intrude with individual liberty. Or should we continue to maintain mediation between the two sides of cracking down on the worst culprits? Or is it ever possible to moderate such a large worldwide market, seeing as laws vary from place to place?

Happy Debating!

[Logandyer45]

I think these kind of sites should stay. 3 reasons.

1) They are not hurting the internet nor are they breaking any laws.
2) Should they go? Why?
3) What is really breaking a law on the internet?

Sites that SHOULD be removed should include...

1) Child Porn
2) Porn it'self
3) Site with false information
4) Hate sites
5) Sites that really have no traffic

Now the sites above contain eaither, illegeal content to 17 years of age or younger, false information such as sites that say someone died when they are still alive. Hate sites. Now Hate sites would be considered as you broke up with your girlfriend and you have naked pics of her. I have seen many of these. They need to be stopped ASAP. Site's with no traffic... Now, Bebo, Myspace and sites that are dead have no traffic whatsoever. Now weather they have traffic or not, if they don't meet the standers that admin want's they should shut it down. Now, Facebook, Twitter and Tubmlr have all the traffic right now. If you compare most of these Social Networking sites, then you will see that half of them are dead nor do they have any life left. Say for instance the members of Habbox stopped coming on. Habbox would probably close down. Sites have been known to close after they have no traffic for awhile. As you can see, I am strongly against SOPA, PIPPA, ATCT and all that.

[GirlNextDoor15]

Ok. This whole SOPA and PIPA thing got me really confused but hey! What's the actual motive of SOPA and PIPA? For some reason, I think it's related to government or politics although I don't know the whole story. And whoever proposed the idea of shutting down Megaupload imo is an utter idiot. Shutting it down due to amount of copyrighted material available is just not convincing enough to make us understand what is online copyright. Of course the meaning of online copyright varies according to different people but the whole thing should be done in order to educate the public about the concerns of over enjoying personal freedom. Sites such as Megaupload, Google and Facebook should be controlled as those sites have their own advantages and disadvantages. Other than that, controlling those sites is also one step further of not abusing online copyrights. And immediate actions should not be taken as I do think shutting down of certain sites and proposal of SOPA and PIPA are just OVER THE TOP. IT'S LIKE CHINA BANNING GOOGLE OR LADY GAGA BECAUSE THEY ARE CONTROVERSIAL AND ****! OH AND MALAYSIA BANNED MEGAUPLOAD BEFORE ALL THIS HAS HAPPENED! They should be controlled, not stopped or banned. So, my answer is NO. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

[Samantha]

I think it depends on the actual person as near enough you'll always get a different answer with a whole load of different reasons to go with it. We usually talk about copyright and such in my Media lessons and my Media teacher often asks us questions such as 'who has ever downloaded an album off the internet' everyone in my class put their hand up except me, I don't see the point of downloading online. I have downloaded a couple of songs before but used a youtube converter, I am very weary when using the internet and it's one of the main reasons I do not download much; I don't want to infect my computer and as I said I see no point.

I still buy CD from the shops and the last I bought was just before Christmas, I'd rather buy because I know some songs on it and not worry about if the rest are a complete waste of time, DVD's I do not buy often and I would buy them more as a gift because again I bear the same question, what's the point in buying when I could watch them on Sky legally.

Some people try music online before buying it but really, what would they have done before they got the internet? Wait for someone else to have it? Or look for other means to get it or use the old fashioned way of just buying the CD?

If people want to distribute illegally then so be it, I don't think you can cap what's on the internet as it's such a big thing, also I do not agree with [@]@Logandyer45[/@] about the removal of porn, I myself do not watch it but it brings joy to some people? Now, if you remove it some people could easily obtain it again and it would be a circle, they would find ways to put it back on the internet but then it gets removed, then back on again. Why should we get rid of someones happiness yet let others have happiness on other sites? It should be some what equal on the internet and have something for everyone to enjoy, sorry if you disagree but I don't think removal of porn is one of the more important concerns here.

Also with sites that have illegal content on, what happened with Facebook a couple of months ago? It was spammed with porn so just because that happened would you remove it? I wouldn't as they can handle it after a few hours.

[GirlNextDoor15]

I think it depends on the actual person as near enough you'll always get a different answer with a whole load of different reasons to go with it. We usually talk about copyright and such in my Media lessons and my Media teacher often asks us questions such as 'who has ever downloaded an album off the internet' everyone in my class put their hand up except me, I don't see the point of downloading online. I have downloaded a couple of songs before but used a youtube converter, I am very weary when using the internet and it's one of the main reasons I do not download much; I don't want to infect my computer and as I said I see no point.

I still buy CD from the shops and the last I bought was just before Christmas, I'd rather buy because I know some songs on it and not worry about if the rest are a complete waste of time, DVD's I do not buy often and I would buy them more as a gift because again I bear the same question, what's the point in buying when I could watch them on Sky legally.

Some people try music online before buying it but really, what would they have done before they got the internet? Wait for someone else to have it? Or look for other means to get it or use the old fashioned way of just buying the CD?

If people want to distribute illegally then so be it, I don't think you can cap what's on the internet as it's such a big thing, also I do not agree with [@]@Logandyer45[/@] about the removal of porn, I myself do not watch it but it brings joy to some people? Now, if you remove it some people could easily obtain it again and it would be a circle, they would find ways to put it back on the internet but then it gets removed, then back on again. Why should we get rid of someones happiness yet let others have happiness on other sites? It should be some what equal on the internet and have something for everyone to enjoy, sorry if you disagree but I don't think removal of porn is one of the more important concerns here.

Also with sites that have illegal content on, what happened with Facebook a couple of months ago? It was spammed with porn so just because that happened would you remove it? I wouldn't as they can handle it after a few hours.

Child porn should be removed though and if there are more people like you, there wouldn't be such a big fuss after all. But then again, not many think like you and that is when online copyrights are being abused. So, that may result in SOPA and PIPA.

[GommeInc]

I think these kind of sites should stay. 3 reasons.

1) They are not hurting the internet nor are they breaking any laws.
2) Should they go? Why?
3) What is really breaking a law on the internet?

One of those is a reason, two are just questions

PIPA and SOPA are two examples of legislation which aren't solving the problem to the best of the US Government's abilities. They are merely making copyright an issue, they are not going to solve copyright problems because the internet is too vast for any legislation to cover, without literally changing the way the internet is monitored at the same time. Should this be how copyright is tackled? Perhaps, but this arguably goes against the American constitution which allows the freedom of speech and expression, and in other countries that uphold Human Rights.

What needs to be addessed is why people are sharing copyrighted material, and what harm it is doing. By this, the US Government and the film, music and media industries need to look internally at the problem and externally at the people who are committing these offenses, to understnad why they are doing it. Some argue the film, music and even gaming industries have become too money focused, with products that do not justify their costs in terms of money per song/album/film/game, and the quality of the game - even discussions about the origins of either of these industries is even brought to question, seeing as they too strive through the freedoms the American Constitution and Worldly Rights have given them to produce such material and now that they've become too big for their boots that they have in themselves become authoritative.

What is the damage? Well, as Grig has stated - the industries in question are losing millions in revenue. There are a few questions resulting from this claim - is it actually damaging the industries and those who work in them? Some argue artists aren't getting a good deal in the first place from the media companies who "support" them. The media industries are so large and powerful that perhaps millions isn't as damaging as they claim, afterall, infringing copyright doesn't appear to be doing any noticeable damage to the main media giants e.g. Sony, WMG etc in the past decade which has seen illegal downloads rise and fall.

What's also a problem is how music (and films/games) are shared. If a friend is interested, you lend them the CD like you would a toy if you were a child, but because of the format music works, it's easy to copy that music but that's the nature of such a medium - CDs/DVDs are storage items at their core, and computers will recognise this and RIP tracks without even asking if you want it to - of course, DVDs do not unless you have a DVD ripper, and you have to give permission.

In short, it's how music is stored and listened to which is the problem. I could RIP a NOW album an infinite number of times on an infinite number of PCs. Is this wrong? No, because I own the CD and could argue that the computers I am copying the files to are mine or have my permission to - as an act of storing the songs. It's how and why people share these which should be asked, not act without asking in the first place. There could be easy fixes - changing the pricing strategies to make songs more affordable. In this day and age, songs come and go quickly and the price may not be justifiable for some.

Something has to be done, but I wouldn't point the finger at the consumer - the Governments and the industries are also in need of questioning. Also, these file sharing sites sort of had it coming. They should only have it so the person who uploaded the file can only download it.

[Samantha]

[@]@Girlnextdoor15[/@] I do agree with Child Porn being removed as I don't see the benefit (if there is one) whatsoever, it's wrong and abusive to say the least.

Also, [@]@gommeinc[/@] proves a very good point as to why people are doing this, again I have just come home from college and again we spoke of SOPA and PIPA and the new one trying to come in too and the question my teacher always asks is why? Some say because they want a 'try before you buy technique' but surely just use Youtube to listen to the songs instead of downloading it illegally. However, another reason why they bought the CD after listening was because of the quality they got with it [the CD] but at the end of the day they may still be downloading music illegally in the first place.

Also, my teacher informed us that in someways music wasn't downloaded illegally unless you were distributing it, therefore some people do not break any laws when downloading off the likes of piratebay, youtube etc. but should it be illegal? It's still obtaining an item for free where some people who do not have the internet would have to pay for and isn't giving an equal chance for each consumer.

I spoke about the music a lot but it can be spread over many items such as DVD's and Games just like gomme informed us. I think there was a Sheffield Hallam University boy (can't remember the name at current) who had a website of links where they could retrieve and watch free things, was that illegal? He wasn't distributing the actual movies and such so should he be to blame? I don't think he should be taken over to America for this crime. However, a valid point could be that many downloads are only in small quantities therefore are they as easy to catch? The Student in this case had a website which got a lot of hits per day, easier to catch in larger quantities?

Overall, if you are downloading for your personal use and no one elses then in this case I do not see a problem, but as I said earlier I am weary of who and where I download off of therefore that's why I only use trusted sites, but who is to blame for the overall thing really?

[dbgtz]

I think these kind of sites should stay. 3 reasons.

1) They are not hurting the internet nor are they breaking any laws.
2) Should they go? Why?
3) What is really breaking a law on the internet?

Sites that SHOULD be removed should include...

1) Child Porn
2) Porn it'self
3) Site with false information
4) Hate sites
5) Sites that really have no traffic

Now the sites above contain eaither, illegeal content to 17 years of age or younger, false information such as sites that say someone died when they are still alive. Hate sites. Now Hate sites would be considered as you broke up with your girlfriend and you have naked pics of her. I have seen many of these. They need to be stopped ASAP. Site's with no traffic... Now, Bebo, Myspace and sites that are dead have no traffic whatsoever. Now weather they have traffic or not, if they don't meet the standers that admin want's they should shut it down. Now, Facebook, Twitter and Tubmlr have all the traffic right now. If you compare most of these Social Networking sites, then you will see that half of them are dead nor do they have any life left. Say for instance the members of Habbox stopped coming on. Habbox would probably close down. Sites have been known to close after they have no traffic for awhile. As you can see, I am strongly against SOPA, PIPPA, ATCT and all that.

At number 3, that's a bit stupid as by that logic, wikipedia should be shut down.

Also I'm guessing from my scanning of the page, child porn is a big issue here. Personally I think there should be no law on the internet itself, it should be free as it is far too hard to monitor. However, for illegal activities to be posted on the internet should be ruled by existing legislation. So basically, while it's legal to post it on the internet, it's illegal to create the thing itself (and if anyone else actually sees it, then it can be classed as distributing it). The government practically control our lives completely, people pay tax, follow law etc. They should then be allowed to use the internet to do as they wish, covering songs and posting it on youtube etc. They should not be penalised for what would basically be free advertising. And on a final note, there would be a larger uproar if any action took place and it would take away the last bit of freedom we may have.

[Logandyer45]

At number 3, that's a bit stupid as by that logic, wikipedia should be shut down.

Also I'm guessing from my scanning of the page, child porn is a big issue here. Personally I think there should be no law on the internet itself, it should be free as it is far too hard to monitor. However, for illegal activities to be posted on the internet should be ruled by existing legislation. So basically, while it's legal to post it on the internet, it's illegal to create the thing itself (and if anyone else actually sees it, then it can be classed as distributing it). The government practically control our lives completely, people pay tax, follow law etc. They should then be allowed to use the internet to do as they wish, covering songs and posting it on youtube etc. They should not be penalised for what would basically be free advertising. And on a final note, there would be a larger uproar if any action took place and it would take away the last bit of freedom we may have.

If your going against Child Porn then you must be sadly mistaken. Again, like I said, Child Porn should be taken off.

3 reasons (Yes these will all be legit reasons)

1) Child Porn is getting too many people in trouble.
2) Child Porn is getting searched more and more everyday. (News statistics)
3) Child Porn is growing everyday. (News statistics)

Now, that's my reason's. I stated my fact. Thanks.

[Samantha]

[@]@Logandyer45[/@]

Where's the proof of these new statistics? If people are getting in trouble for it then so they should, if they choose to watch it, it's their own fault so why shouldn't they be punished?