I was halfway through a reply continuing with the site A/site B, child porn/infringement comparisons but decided that playing by your rules isn't going to benefit anyone. You see your analogy falls apart when you have a look at the differences between child porn and copyright infringement.
Firstly, child porn is classed as a criminal matter where as copyright infringement, in most cases, is a civil matter.
Secondly, child porn is child porn regardless of how you look at it. Digital media may or may not be infringing on someones copyright and it is very difficult for someone who is not the rights holder to know which it is. I notice that you skipped over my reference to youtube/viacom.
The problem for copyright maximalist and other apologists is that the specious copyright arguments fall apart when applied to examples like real life. (You can ignore this sentence, it's just me having a dig at you and feeding the trolls [ie. you.]) :)
I would just like to add to the end of my above post that rights holders should actually be thanking the linking sites for showing them where the infringing media is actually being hosted.
"Under Protect IP in order to be actionable the linking site would have to be both dedicated to infringing activities AND have no other significant commercial purpose."
So does this mean that The Pirate Bay would be fine under PIPA? It is a website that is dedicated to the free sharing of digital files, regardless of the copyright status of those files. It has been used by thousands of artists to promote themselves and to connect with their fans. It is also a treasure trove of public domain and creative commons works.
So the Pirate Bay is not "dedicated to infringing activities" (it just does not care...) and it has "other significant commercial purpose." So it's fine, right?
Legally created digital media is, well, legal. Child porn is not. Finding free digital media online and linking to it to show others where to find it is legal. Finding child porn online and linking to it is sick (and also [probably though IANAL] illegal.)
Do you see the difference yet?
No? I didn't think you would (troll handbook rule 1: never understand the other sides arguments.)
How about this then. It has been shown time and time again how difficult it is to know what is infringing on someones copyright, what is not infringing, and what the rights holder have, themselves, put online for free (youtube - viacom anyone?). It is easy to tell that an image of naked little children getting it on is sick, disturbing, and illegal.
Regardless of if the site hosting the links knows the copyright status of the media it is linking to, the removal of the linking site does absolutely nothing to remove the infringing material from the Internet. Where as if the rights holders went directly to the source of the infringing material and had it taken down then the (perceived) problem of the linking site will be solved at the same time.
If my memory serves me right, Mike bet that IF they go to court they will win. I don't believe he bet that they WOULD go to court.
Come to Australia, we will welcome you with open arms. If you come by boat we will even put you up in a lovely resort on Christmas Island all expenses paid for anywhere from a month to a few years (not your choice in how long.....) :)
"i think it is perfectly fine for someone to sell something with conditions. i feel if the purchaser agrees to the conditions then decide they dont like them so they are going to do whatever they want then they are bad people."
Ahh, here is where I think you are missing the point. Sony sold a product and then, well after the sale, added conditions to the product. The purchasers did not agree to the conditions at the point of sale because they did not exist. Do you still think that these conditions are valid? Do you still think that the people that ignore these added conditions are bad people?
Thanks for the clarification.
From your link: "A Minister may move an urgency motion for specified business, particularly bills. The motion can be moved without advance notice, and is not debated by the House, although the Minister must inform the House why the Government wishes to take urgency."
I would really like to know what the Minister said when informing the House why the Government wished to take urgency on this 3 strikes bill.
Do you fear that governments around the world might start to realise that stricter copyright enforcement is not the best path to walk down? Are you uncertain about your future as a troll/shill/waste of space? Do you doubt the effectiveness of the entertainment industries copyright propaganda?
No, it isn't. Asking what level of protection is needed is making the assumption that there is some level of protection that is needed.
"how is copyright hurting anything?"
Million dollar lawsuits, websites taken off line, forms of technology depicted to be evil.... Shall I continue? Do you need links? The 'idea' behind copyright has some merit. The current implementation does nothing but make me feel sick.
"i.e., what is the optimal level of protection and is stricter protection better than the current level"
I would argue that a better question to ask before asking "what is the optimal level of protection" would be to ask if protection is required at all.
I now officially hate popsci.com, I can reach that link using a proxy but not when trying from a normal internet connection in Australia!!
Can't get to the first link from popsci.com from Australia. It keeps adding a .au and tells me that the page I'm looking for can't be found. I will be trying a proxy when I get home but it is rather annoying....
The other 3 articles are cool though.
Wow, you really are stubborn aren't you AJ. That is like saying that a used car dealer is dedicated to ford cars yet if you bothered to look around the entire car lot instead of just the cars on the front drive you would find that Toyotas, Nissians, VWs together all out numbered the Fords. I give up AJ no point in discussing this with you anymore.
Cheers, as I'm not yet attached to Ubuntu I'll give PCLinuxOS a shot.
"How do I get torrent-finder to NOT return only illicit stuff?"
Did you look below at my reply?
Please note that these are not just 3 random searches, I have downloaded torrents from all 3 in the last few months. I recently downloaded piano sheet music for Chopin from the Public Domain section, I'm a huge supporter of VODO and am currently seeding 7 of their torrents, and I have recently started to play around with Ubuntu in an effort to move away from Windows.