I think a lot of people I work with use Yahoo as their homepage. I don't think there was anything mentioned on their site about the blackout. If you don't use the internet much, you won't know.
There had to be a link on Yahoo as there was coverage on this from every major news network. I don't really use Yahoo much at all but the last time I was on there for a fantasy league their page was littered with links and such.
For the most part, I would assume the older generations simply don't care. I can only think of one person in my family over 30 who would even care about this passing. I can barely think of more who would have any remote chance of understanding if it was explained to them.
Now I do come from Mississippi so that's probably not saying much.
For the most part, I would assume the older generations simply don't care. I can only think of one person in my family over 30 who would even care about this passing. I can barely think of more who would have any remote chance of understanding if it was explained to them.
Now I do come from Mississippi so that's probably not saying much.
<.< I'm sorry, I know you said in your family, but really ... > 30 is considered older generation now? Ouch!
For the most part, I would assume the older generations simply don't care. I can only think of one person in my family over 30 who would even care about this passing. I can barely think of more who would have any remote chance of understanding if it was explained to them.
Now I do come from Mississippi so that's probably not saying much.
<.< I'm sorry, I know you said in your family, but really ... > 30 is considered older generation now? Ouch!
My original thought is for those 50+. When I started thinking about my family in particular, I lowered it to 30 because I could only think of the one person over 30.
Actually most people over 30 grew up with the internet. We watched it grow into what it is today. Hell half the hard core gamers out there are over 30. Just because the 30 somethings in your family are sheltered dont lump the rest of us old *** in with them.
Actually most people over 30 grew up with the internet. We watched it grow into what it is today. Hell half the hard core gamers out there are over 30. Just because the 30 somethings in your family are sheltered dont lump the rest of us old *** in with them.
So from what I can tell, the protest was rather successful with the amount of sponsors and supporters bailing out from the sheer backlash from the public as their potential voters and consumers.
The question is, what's next? Isn't there a secondary hearing or vote process down the line? Does it still face enough support to be passed? Are the plans to up the ante with further protests?
Every representative who supports these (and wants to be re-elected) is probably shaking in their boots right now. At this point, I think anyone who votes for SOPA/PIPA will be removed from office come the next election. In the case that they actually pass, I'm sure there will be many candidates who run on a "get rid of SOPA/PIPA" platform, and there will be plenty of negative campaigning against those who voted for it.
To the remaining supporters of the SOPA/PIPA bills, I would probably start refusing to purchase any of their services or products (and I have read the bill in it's current state) to further the protest, and I am sure there are others willing to do the same. The websites themselves are already at a huge loss if it goes through, even more so are the consumers who require, or would like, certain services, but the sites which originally offered them, have been shut down over unfounded allegations.
Although there are many ways to protest a highly unfavorable bill, or flat out unconstitional bills, which severely limit a person's freedom to information (Such any any Access to Information acts), there are very few ways to open up civil dialogue, by creating opportunities for open discussion. This bill should have been brought about for open discussion with the public, or at the very least, with all affected services, sites, and domains. (I have a feeling this may be part of required federal law in the US, but please correct me if it is not the case)
Every representative who supports these (and wants to be re-elected) is probably shaking in their boots right now. At this point, I think anyone who votes for SOPA/PIPA will be removed from office come the next election. In the case that they actually pass, I'm sure there will be many candidates who run on a "get rid of SOPA/PIPA" platform, and there will be plenty of negative campaigning against those who voted for it.
I would hope any politician worth their salt would would vote against SOPA/PIPA if they have any hope of re-election.
As far as corporate support goes, boycott has already proven incredibly effective, as seen with GoDaddy already losing I believe 100,000+ domains within 10 days of publicly listing their support for the bill.
GoDaddy.com technically wouldn't be allowed to air their own commercials, because some of the actors and other hired talents, have websites elsewhere, and would thus be found guilty, or have allegations thrown against them, for copyright infringement, by using some of the actors they do, ie. Danica Patrick.
You know what, as crazy as it sounds maybe that's what we need Endoq.
Perhaps we need this horrid, alienating, sweeping and oppressive bill to enrage every American or internet user in general into action against the government that runs them. Shake the foundations of what has failed us so many times and continues to show an utter lack of concern or care for our welfare and interests. Because despite our power to push these things back into the hellish depths from which they came; they will continue to emerge indefinitely until we can have representatives that for once actually represent us and our country.
Actually most people over 30 grew up with the internet. We watched it grow into what it is today. Hell half the hard core gamers out there are over 30. Just because the 30 somethings in your family are sheltered dont lump the rest of us old *** in with them.
Not to say you're sheltered or you don't know anything about the internet, but the internet was commercialized in 1995 (didn't become very popular until 1997). Anyone 35 or older were already legal adults when the internet became available to the public. Adults certainly can learn new things though :)
What probably bothers me the most about SOPA is the supporters, sponsors and creators of the bill itself even admitted and openly noted they don't understand how the internet works or what would directly be affected as a result of their own legislation. You would think someone in politics would look at the chain of events and growth of the internet as it holds direct relevance to your occupation and future voters as well as the interests of those you represent. How can people that in all probability would say something like "Where's the any key?" end up writing something so ridiculous?
What probably bothers me the most about SOPA is the supporters, sponsors and creators of the bill itself even admitted and openly noted they don't understand how the internet works or what would directly be affected as a result of their own legislation. You would think someone in politics would look at the chain of events and growth of the internet as it holds direct relevance to your occupation and future voters as well as the interests of those you represent. How can people that in all probability would say something like "Where's the any key?" end up writing something so ridiculous?
I find this hilarious. In one sentance they are described as people who have no idea what this would actually do or how it would be used or whatever. In another it paints them as people who would use it to their advantage, to cut out competition and other nefarious plots. So which is it? Plus, I find it very hard to beleive that anyone thinks that no one on the supportive side of this has no idea of what would happen if these were to pass. I can gaurantee you that some do.
What probably bothers me the most about SOPA is the supporters, sponsors and creators of the bill itself even admitted and openly noted they don't understand how the internet works or what would directly be affected as a result of their own legislation. You would think someone in politics would look at the chain of events and growth of the internet as it holds direct relevance to your occupation and future voters as well as the interests of those you represent. How can people that in all probability would say something like "Where's the any key?" end up writing something so ridiculous?
I find this hilarious. In one sentance they are described as people who have no idea what this would actually do or how it would be used or whatever. In another it paints them as people who would use it to their advantage, to cut out competition and other nefarious plots. So which is it? Plus, I find it very hard to beleive that anyone thinks that no one on the supportive side of this has no idea of what would happen if these were to pass. I can gaurantee you that some do.
Oh I'm sure some do. But generally the support has been around such a broad and generalized propaganda of anti-piracy that it is nearly akin to cavemen unanimously saying FIRE BAD!
Not many stop to think that the subsequent consequences could prove counter productive to their own business they sought so desperately to protect.
But my apologies, as I should have been more specific to note that those that lack the knowledge or competence of the inner workings of the internet and how it would be affected by their bill would be the politicians at large. A good chunk of the supporting fortune 500 companies probably know exactly what the bill will do and it accurately reflects their interests and ambitions.
I'm not terribly well informed on internet provider's business models but how exactly are they to gain from gutting the internet? I saw a few on the support lists and it struck me as odd.
I'm not terribly well informed on internet provider's business models but how exactly are they to gain from gutting the internet? I saw a few on the support lists and it struck me as odd.
Businesses tend to be myopic in nature, caring only for the short term benefits that affect them immediately rather than seeing the big picture in how their support for something can ultimately be the very undoing of their business they attempted to protect.
Why else have there been so many layoffs immediately after record breaking profits?
I'm not terribly well informed on internet provider's business models but how exactly are they to gain from gutting the internet? I saw a few on the support lists and it struck me as odd.
Businesses tend to be myopic in nature, caring only for the short term benefits that affect them immediately rather than seeing the big picture in how their support for something can ultimately be the very undoing of their business they attempted to protect. Why else have there been so many layoffs immediately after record breaking profits?
I would ave to disagree with you businesses only caring about short-term benefits. While I would say it is important to continue to present with strong gains in the short-term, many companies still focus on long-term growth and expansion.
I'm not terribly well informed on internet provider's business models but how exactly are they to gain from gutting the internet? I saw a few on the support lists and it struck me as odd.
Businesses tend to be myopic in nature, caring only for the short term benefits that affect them immediately rather than seeing the big picture in how their support for something can ultimately be the very undoing of their business they attempted to protect. Why else have there been so many layoffs immediately after record breaking profits?
I would ave to disagree with you businesses only caring about short-term benefits. While I would say it is important to continue to present with strong gains in the short-term, many companies still focus on long-term growth and expansion.
Though it's not the only outlook on how things are operated, but it tends to be the priority or focus more often than not. This of course depends on the nature and size of the business itself, as well as the persons holding administration.
Sites like that are just asking for trouble imo. Can't make a profit off of other people's work and expect it to go unnoticed. Can't stop people from stealing by 'breaking the internet'. I am not in support of either bill and feel that we should go beyond signing a petition. Boycott movies etc and hit them where it really hurts. Let them know who really is in control and make them stop acting so foolish and childish. This whole copyright infringement stuff has just gone way too far imo and big companies can't prove the actual loss by piracy. If a person can't afford it in the first place how can you count them in the figures for a loss? lol Shut down Hollywood... no loss anyway with their poor quality of movies and 12-15 bucks a movie these days. (too tired to correct my grammar lol)
So, I was wondering...If this does actually pass, then would all the music threads, the threads with any and all pop-culture clips, and the LOLpic thread have to be wiped from AH?
You may have noticed a number of sites around the internet either going offline, or blacking themselves out today, in protest of two bills in the US Congress that were recently set to pass with nearly unanimous consent of both Republicans and Democrats. An enormous opposition movement has popped up among tech, game, and internet companies, and the bills are now stalled pending further review, but the Democratic (Senate) and Republican (House) leaders are still set on moving forward with them at some point, so it's still important to mention.
Here's a description of what these bills do in a nutshell, and why our users should be concerned.
---------------------------
Probably the most important provision of online copyright law is something called the DMCA Safe Harbor Provision. This legal provision says that someone who hosts a site that allows user content (example: Google, which links to other sites, FFXI, which allows user chat, or even our site, which allows forum posts) is a legally separate entity from their users, as far as copyright violations are concerned.
In plain English, this means that if one of you decides to make a forum post linking to or re-posting copyrighted content, you are legally responsible. You can be sued. But as long as we make a good faith effort to remove the content as soon as we're notified, we (meaning Scragg, Cliff, and I) cannot be held personally responsible, nor directly sued for violation of copyright ourselves.
Similarly, Safe Harbor means that we cannot be held responsible for sites that we link to, should those sites violate copyright. In other words, if gamerescape, or wikia, or any of the sites linked in our item pages violate copyright somewhere on their own pages, that's their problem -- not ours.
The only way for a copyright holder to take legal action against FFXIAH.com is if they take us to court, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we purposely and actively engaged in the violation of copyright ourselves. Which is a pretty high bar to reach.
---------------------------
SOPA and PIPA essentially remove the Safe Harbor provision. In other words, if one of you decides to link to copyrighted content on our forum, we are now directly and personally responsible, and can theoretically be sued for copyright violation as though we were the ones doing it ourselves. Similarly, if a site we link to (like wikia) decides to violate copyright, we can also be held responsible just for linking to them.
Worse, the bills remove the requirement to even take us to court. Copyright holders themselves (private entities) can now go straight to the internet's DNS authorities (the master address listing for all sites on the web) and file a complaint. This will immediately knock FFXIAH.com offline without so much as a court ruling. It's then incumbent upon us to fight back in court and earn the right to bring the site back.
Copyright holders argue this is necessary because they lose money for every second a site is allowed to link to, or feature, copyrighted content. They argue they need ultimate power to knock sites off the internet immediately, and only deal with the burden of proof later.
They promise to only use their new powers "sparingly" and "responsibly." I'm sure you can all guess how that one will end.
---------------------------
This makes the internet a very dangerous place to operate. Google could be held responsible for returning links to any sites that could even possibly feature copyrighted content. (Which is most of them.) We could be forced to pre-censor all forum and user content for copyright violations before we could even put them online. Arguably, MMO's couldn't even allow users to speak freely in chat, as they might mention something copyrighted, which would make the MMO companies themselves legally responsible, and capable of being knocked offline without trial at the first complaint. Sites like Wikipedia, which are based entirely on user content, probably couldn't operate at all due to the inherent dangers. The effects would be widespread and very chilling to how the internet operates.
---------------------------
Having worked in the games industry for 15 years, I'm acutely aware of the financial damage done by online piracy. This thread is not the place to argue the virtues or moral pitfalls of pirated content.
That being said, these bills are deeply flawed. They were written by major copyright holders (the recording and movie industries) to give them carte blanche ultimate authority over the internet. They comprise a massive overreach, and our elected representatives (who are too old to even understand how VCRs work, let alone the web) are too clueless to realize what's actually in them.
If you have a second, please sign one of the (many) online petitions in protest of SOPA and PIPA, and/or contact your representative or senator and urge them to oppose the bills. This is not a Democrat or Republican thing -- both parties have been equally supportive of the bills and both parties are responsible.
The massive outpouring of opposition from tech companies has caused many people in Congress to change their minds, and the White House has also now expressed reservations about signing the bills in their current form. But the battle isn't done yet. The bills still live, and will still be brought up in the next Congressional session.