Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

The End of the Internet.


Recommended Posts

This is probably going to be my most verbose post on TPR so a sincere thanks ahead of time for reading the entire thing.

 

The internet (as I see it) is probably the greatest invention we will see in our lifetimes. It allows us to share our thoughts, ideas, and content in a way that never existed before. The sharing of all of this information is the cornerstone of many websites including TPR.

 

 

Today we are faced with the (nearly) eminent passage of a law that would destroy many of the aspects of the internet that make it this exciting, collective community that we are all a part of.

 

The United States Congress is currently reviewing a bill called SOPA (STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT) which builds on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as well as the Protect IP Act of 2008. The name of the act only exists to convince uniformed people to support it.

 

So what's the law about and how does it affect a site like TPR?

 

 

In the past if someone were to post a news summary on TPR from another media source (note: The TPR policy has always been to give credit to the original source), this was considered "fair use" as the summary was posted for us to comment on. Think of it as a movie reviewer posting a clip from a film and then sharing his thoughts on it.

 

If the original source did not want TPR to post a summary of an article then they had a means of having it removed by sending TPR (or any other website) a cease & desist letter. That is what we typically refer to in US law as "due process".

 

At it's heart, what the SOPA law aims for, is to remove that and place all of the responsibility on the owner of the website or the company hosting it.

 

To put it succinctly, a website like TPR or youtube could be immediately blocked and sued if a random member posted a summary of a news article on a park's blog or if a random member even posted a photo of a ride (ride designs are copyrighted) without the express permission of the ride designer and park ahead of time.

 

 

Military State?

 

 

Wikipedia, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Etsy, 4chan(who had a rage face when the bill was sponsored) and every single internet provider and host (except for godaddy) is vehemently against this law.

 

 

If there is one thing you can get behind in 2012 and stand against, I think it's this law. Lets keep the internet a place where we can discuss news, comment, and criticize just like the real world. This isn't about someone videotaping a film and then posting it as a torrent (something I'm clearly against), this is about protecting our rights to free speech and keeping the internet free for everyone.

 

 

Please feel free to comment (for now)

 

 

-chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This was also discussed on the currently running annual convention of the german Chaos Computer Club - a german hacker club. They still have small hopes that it'll not pass and if it'll pass that the EU will not follow.

 

But there's a whole trend not only on the hosting site of the coin. New devices like some Smartphones, HDTV-recorders, etc. are more and more locked up missing more and more functions of an universal computing device: No unrestricted interfaces like an USB-port, no ability to use external data-storage like an SD-Card or HDD, no data can be transferred to/from the device without a special software that could phone back all transactions if the transfer is at all possible, no software can be installed from independent sources,...

 

All this is bundled up in a "nice" GUI and "nice" design to be bait the users who dont care. My fear is that in the future we've to pay for each picture, audio and video each and every time we watch/hear it and there will be no way to store any content...

 

P.S.: Thats why I also dislike E-Books and always prefer the printed issue - that I can sell, make it a gift, share it freely - and of course can use it without any kind of device or electricity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that even if this gets passed it will end up being like the Verizon Fee, the Netflix Split, the debit card fees, etc.

 

As soon as people see what it ACTUALLY does, they will quickly rebel and it will die.

 

Yes. While this law is absolutely 100% evil, will do NOTHING to stop piracy, and is pretty much going to put the US internet into a state that is very similar to China's or Iran's version, yeah, it will get challenged in court about .00005 seconds after it's passed. There is so much about it that is fundamentally wrong that it won't survive a court challenge.

 

The big entertainment companies couldn't sue YouTube out of existence, so now they're trying this. Hopefully wiser heads will prevail and this will go away...

 

dt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if posting a summary of a news article on the internet is bad, then should a law also be passed saying people cannot summarize news articles when talking to a friend? That sounds like the same thing to me, and the last one is considered violation of the First Amentment. So, in that case, this law is unconstitutional. Also, outside of CEO's of major corporations, no one really supports this law, so why are politicians, people who are elected by the people, for the people, and of the people, doing crap they know none of the people want? Any politician who votes 'yes' should not even try running for re-election. I bet bribes probably had something to do with it.

 

So, if laws like this can be passed, then we will soon have laws limiting the amount of time people can spend on internet, computers, and phones. Next, we will have a permanant Sedition Act, followed by a Constitutional Amendment that nullifies the whole Constitution. Then, we will have unlimited power politicians, and the US will become like an African nation, where a terrible economy forms as the result of ultra-corrupt politicians.

 

If the Constitution can be bent like that, then why not bend it all the way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that even if this gets passed it will end up being like the Verizon Fee, the Netflix Split, the debit card fees, etc.

 

As soon as people see what it ACTUALLY does, they will quickly rebel and it will die.

 

It's not that easy but even if it should pass the congress the president can always veto it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's next...we can't say copyrighted names via the internet? Can't look at the outside world since our brains are taking in copyrighted material? We can't even quote something verbally? We may as well just stuff ourselves in a closet and get it over with.

*Disclaimer: The above message is copyrighted and therefore can not be used whatsoever, even with permission. This disclaimer statement is also copyrighted.

 

Random note: This just made me think of the events on TPR last year with watermarked photos, followed by us making excessively watermarked photos (of potentially copyrighted images).

 

Honestly, I think this is going to be an epic flop and if it doesn't, we will all make it become an epic flop and make the hairbrain(s) who came up with this concept feel like a complete idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DRM didn't work, why will this? Even if this passes, it will have 0% chance of significantly reducing piracy. Here is a summery of a paper I read a while back. I can't find it so I'm paraphrasing...

 

 

The whole idea is essentially DNS blocking. DNS means Domain Name System. What this does is takes a web address ad associates it with an IP address (for example http://themeparkreview.com = 98.142.209.220). The law would require ISPs to redirect or filter offending domains. This "DNS hijacking" would actually cause a lot of security problems... But we need not get into that. There is a catch... DNSSEC

 

DNSSEC does not allow for this type or redirecting. This makes the web more secure. DNSSEC prevents a browsing session form being Hijacked by a fake DNS record (common with phishing scams). The development of DNSSEC hopes to prevent this.

 

Furthermore, the current bill states that service providers are required to take only “technically feasible and reasonable measures” to comply with government court orders. The legislation further states that a service provider is not required to “modify its network, software, systems, or facilities” to comply with these requirements.

 

This means that if ISPs DNS servers use DNSSEC, because DNSSEC does not allow for this type of redirecting ISPs wouldn't have to take action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that even if this gets passed it will end up being like the Verizon Fee, the Netflix Split, the debit card fees, etc.

 

As soon as people see what it ACTUALLY does, they will quickly rebel and it will die.

 

To me, 2011 will forever be seen as the year that a bunch of companies tried to get too greedy, and had to rely on their customers to smack some sense into them.

 

In the end, I think the internet will end up getting more and more closed off and monitored, but it will have to happen much more gradually than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "DNS hijacking" would actually cause a lot of security problems.

 

What security issues does it create? I've got news for you: ISPs have been redirecting DNS for years.

 

My old employer used the following company to generate additional revenue by redirecting failed DNS queries to IPs that contained ad content:

 

http://www.paxfire.com/

 

An obnoxious practice, but not a security breach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Again this is information I remember from a paper I quickly read in class last semester. But I believe it mainly had to do with potential fake pages phishing for information. We quickly talked about it during my intro to web production class last semester. Keep in mind that I go to community college so I am not an expert on this by any means. I'm just offering what I think I know to the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was on the news here a few days ago that GoDaddy has pulled it's support for SOPA. It originally supported it, but after thousands of customers threatened to pull their accounts, they changed their stance.

 

Seems that our government will never catch up to technology, or be able to write laws that actually work. They need to stop trying to appease the entertainment industry, which is mostly to blame for all this madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was actually enacted and enforced imagine the cost to taxpayers. Doesn't the government have more pressing issues it can focus on?

 

Furthermore, I believe that the Internet drives our economy more than the entertainment industry does, we should protect that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I posted on Facebook, the real reason the recording and movie industries want this law to pass is because they are afraid of the power the internet gives to talented people. They blame piracy for their foolish investment in a crap product, while the talented musicians/directors/producers/etc. find new ways to be less dependent on the big companies.

 

As just one example, Louis CK was able to make $1 million, by *gasp*, offering a reasonably priced download directly to his fans without any record company as the middle man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I posted on Facebook, the real reason the recording and movie industries want this law to pass is because they are afraid of the power the internet gives to talented people. They blame piracy for their foolish investment in a crap product, while the talented musicians/directors/producers/etc. find new ways to be less dependent on the big companies.

 

As just one example, Louis CK was able to make $1 million, by *gasp*, offering a reasonably priced download directly to his fans without any record company as the middle man.

 

 

Yeah- the reason this law even exists is because of large corporations' lobbying money and a knee jerk reaction to their lost profits after producing so much derivative material over the past decade. Using your example above many artists are better off today as they control their destiny and success in much more personal way than ever before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also have to realize that this won't be used just against sites that have "pirated" material. How quickly do you think our government would shut down something like Wikileaks if they had the power to do so? This law would allow them to do just that.

 

As I've said in other places, it's not about piracy, it's about control.

 

dt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/