This page sponsored by Extreme Restraints    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : Other Topics : "Hackers retaliate" 1 2 Hackers retaliate (19) This post is on the Other Topics web board. 21 Jan 12, 2:19 PM Glinda UK, 2 yrs Pet_Girl wrote: The indictment happened earlier, yes, but with an indictment you have time to coordinate arrests and things like that, that coordination could have, and did happen earlier than the 19th. But people knew (the government had to know, they're just omnipresent like that) something big was coming and they knew that a planned protest would happen long before the 16th when it was officially announced. Many who were in on the ground floor of the protests and speaking out, myself included, knew that there would be another protest right after the first one in November and it wouldn't have been too hard to predict that it would be soon before they were set to vote on them. Again, Anonymous did NOT hack those sites. As the article that @Slave_Emma cited says, they used a DDoS attack which is basically sending a shit ton of requests and data to each website. We've all seen the "I'm sorry this page could not load" banners at one time or another (or the twitter "fail whale" for you twittsters out there) which says to reload it in a minute because there's too many people trying to do the same thing at the same time for the site to handle it. That on a massive scale is all that was. It didn't give away national secrets, or leave our troops open for attack, or anything else, it just made the websites go down for a while. As far as the Megaupload site, how it works is you pay for a premium membership, meaning you can upload whatever you like to the site. They, of course, do monitoring and when copyrighted material is reported, they would take it down. That, of course, depends on the reporting system and on the honesty of the people who signed the terms of service that said "anything I upload is mine." No site is going to be 100% on getting that stuff, if they were, the internet wouldn't exist. The $500 million figure that they came up with assumes that for everything pirated that's a legitimate lost sale, and for songs, they sure as hell don't base it on the iTunes sale of one song, they base it on if you'd bought the whole CD from a store. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but there are soooooo many movies and songs I'd have never seen or listened to if my friends hadn't invited me over to see them. So not every viewing of a pirated movie was really a lost sale. If we're going to do that, every time you've borrowed a book from a friend, or from the library, you have stolen royalties from the author, who is going after all those people? Arresting the owner of Megaupload for making money off of people using his site how he did NOT intend it to be used, would be like arresting Craing Newmark (owner of Craigslist) for murder because of the Craigslist Killer. I am absolutely not advocating piracy, what I am advocating is more honest reporting of numbers (Hollywood and the music biz, I'm looking at you!), holding the correct people responsible for their actions, and the free flowing of information. While SOPA and PIPA might be dead or dying, we do need to be vigilant so that our freedoms are not lost. I will not stand for being censored because I emailed a picture of myself with a Mickey Mouse (copyrighted) toy to my grandmother. I will not stand for being fined because I took a video and shared it with my boyfriend via the internet and it had a song playing in the background. The politicians need to be careful when protecting a nearly obsolete form of media (CDs and the ever-growing more obsolete DVDs) because it doesn't take into account the growth in the industry. (I'm not even going to go into how everyone says "think of the artist" when combating piracy when the artist really gets VERY LITTLE off of each sale and the record companies get most of it.) I'd say "thirded" but I don't know if that's a proper word, so I'll just say brilliant post. 21 Jan 12, 3:30 PM SL_precious CA, 3 yrs I have been following the thread with great interest, my daughter had explained to me what was going on with the SOPA and PIPA bills. To be honest I hadn't really paid any attention but it is a very serious issue and I am glad that the peaceful protests have been successful . @Pet_girl , I completely agree with you here. To pass something so vague puts even the most innocent at risk of being prosecuted. I also agree with @emma regarding the protection of copyright material. My daughter is pursuing a theatre and film studies major. She has to be very careful when using music in a project she is doing. It must either be free of copyright or she must gain permission from the author. Which is how it should be, most simply want credit for their work. Piracy has been around long before the internet... I mean, how many of us copied a friends album or taped (ya I'm showing my age) music off the radio. It was not for monitary gain but a copy none the less. The Internet has just made it easier to share . Should a website be held responsible for the content a user decides to share after that user has agreed not to do so? I don't know. "Amazing what happens when we let go, surrender all and embrace the painful changes that are necessary to bring wholeness, and a brighter tomorrow." Suzanne Sondberg 21 Jan 12, 6:45 PM SeanT70 9 yrs Glinda wrote: I'd say "thirded" but I don't know if that's a proper word, so I'll just say brilliant post. First to vote a post up: 'o/' Seconded**: 'o//' Thirded**: 'o///'... ..oh wait, that'd probably end up in Area 51, waiting to be examined, along with all the other oddities and stuff we're all told doesn't exist. I jest, of course. They closed Area 51, used the land surrounding it to build a restaurant selling exotic dishes from far away, and the proceeds from which furthered the cause of ridiculous Bills going through Federal process - or failing, as the case may be. Have fun, Sean. **notes: I had to use all right arms rather than left and right, because apparently ya can't use backslash in the typeface used on the forum, so instead of arms up, we're doing the funky-chicken! 23 Jan 12, 10:22 PM SnrDreama FR, 5 mths Thank you for raising this topic and to all those who shared so much info. I am glad to know that I am not the only one concerned about how US legislation will affect the rest of us. Or how little is being accurately reported in the mainstream media. 26 Jan 12, 9:33 AM imdmb7 US(NY), 2 yrs Y! lets look at somthing that happened on thatguywiththeglasses.com, the nostalgia critic had a review of the movie 'The Room' that got pulled down because some jerk down at theroommovie.com decided that that was copyright infringement even though its a review and thus protected under US copyright law. now imagine if some bullshit bill like this passes, not only would that asshat get the review pulled on trumped up charges but it would put Doug in jail! sure he would (maby) be let out in a few days, the review was back up in a few days, but theres a difference between having your review down for a few days and being in jail for a few days, one is annoying, the other could get you dead asshats *grumbles and bitches under my breath about stupidity of people* AND ANOTHER THING! this bill would shut down google. google. one of the biggest businesses in the US would be shut down. honestly, considering the sort of humor the people at google have, i wouldent be surprised if they just walked away (which would end quite alot of jobs and lose the US alot of cash flow, and who of you are currently reading this on an android phone? yeah, yould be fucked) maby google would stay open in another country, but they wouldent continue business over here, they already arent happy with the US, so anybody without a windows or iphone would suddenly lose connection, and anything supported by google would fall *grumbles and bitches more, fuck i hate stupidity, i cant stand it, grumblegrumblegrumble* 26 Jan 12, 12:00 PM slave_emma US(OK), 6 yrs Y! imdmb7 wrote: lets look at somthing that happened on thatguywiththeglasses.com, the nostalgia critic had a review of the movie 'The Room' that got pulled down because some jerk down at theroommovie.com decided that that was copyright infringement even though its a review and thus protected under US copyright law. now imagine if some bullshit bill like this passes, not only would that asshat get the review pulled on trumped up charges but it would put Doug in jail! sure he would (maby) be let out in a few days, the review was back up in a few days, but theres a difference between having your review down for a few days and being in jail for a few days, one is annoying, the other could get you dead asshats *grumbles and bitches under my breath about stupidity of people* The reason why the copyright holder got upset was because in some of the reviews he uses video clips from the movie. The movie is copyrighted, so yes he should have asked for permission from the copyright holder to use the content from the movie. (He was in violation of YouTube's terms of service so the videos were deleted from the site. Hence the reason why he created his own website and stopped uploading the videos to YouTube.) Also, if you notice when you watch the videos on his channels there are ads on the video itself and along the side bar. He is making money off the review and the content from the movie he is using without permission. At the very least the copyright should get part of the money he is making off these reviews. If I was a copyright holder and someone was making money off of my material; I would not be too pleased about it. If you have ever watched late night public television, there is also a movie review show. If you read the credits, the producers gained permission to use content from each of the movies shown in the review. I'm not saying SOPA was the right course of action, but what I am saying there should be a way to protect copyright holders from someone using clips of their video without permission, but not criminalize the soccer mom who uploaded pictures to Facebook of her daughter's Hello Kitty birthday party for friends and family. Best wishes, slave emma Master Howard's little girl 26 Jan 12, 4:50 PM Lord_Uther UK, 6 yrs slave_emma wrote: You can share the original movie, book, or whatever else you purchased with whomever as long as it is in its original form. I don't about the States but here in the UK the copyright slogan at the beginning of a dvd will say something along the lines of "The material on this DVD is copyrighted and intended for personal use only. You agree not to lend, borrow, hire or broadcast without express permission of the copyright holder". So technically, here in the UK anyway, it is a breach of copyright to lend a dvd to a friend. **Doesn't stop us though ** My name is Lord Uther, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair! 26 Jan 12, 5:47 PM imdmb7 US(NY), 2 yrs Y! slave_emma wrote: imdmb7 wrote: lets look at somthing that happened on thatguywiththeglasses.com, the nostalgia critic had a review of the movie 'The Room' that got pulled down because some jerk down at theroommovie.com decided that that was copyright infringement even though its a review and thus protected under US copyright law. now imagine if some bullshit bill like this passes, not only would that asshat get the review pulled on trumped up charges but it would put Doug in jail! sure he would (maby) be let out in a few days, the review was back up in a few days, but theres a difference between having your review down for a few days and being in jail for a few days, one is annoying, the other could get you dead asshats *grumbles and bitches under my breath about stupidity of people* The reason why the copyright holder got upset was because in some of the reviews he uses video clips from the movie. The movie is copyrighted, so yes he should have asked for permission from the copyright holder to use the content from the movie. (He was in violation of YouTube's terms of service so the videos were deleted from the site. Hence the reason why he created his own website and stopped uploading the videos to YouTube.) Also, if you notice when you watch the videos on his channels there are ads on the video itself and along the side bar. He is making money off the review and the content from the movie he is using without permission. At the very least the copyright should get part of the money he is making off these reviews. If I was a copyright holder and someone was making money off of my material; I would not be too pleased about it. If you have ever watched late night public television, there is also a movie review show. If you read the credits, the producers gained permission to use content from each of the movies shown in the review. I'm not saying SOPA was the right course of action, but what I am saying there should be a way to protect copyright holders from someone using clips of their video without permission, but not criminalize the soccer mom who uploaded pictures to Facebook of her daughter's Hello Kitty birthday party for friends and family. Best wishes, slave emma except for the fact that its covered under fair use (in the US) as a review. so not only did they win that battle, doug put up a video mocking them, and because of that somebody (not related to doug or his website) altered the wikipedia page for the room to call john an asshat (i knew i used that word from somewhere related) besides, he still uploads to youtube, the review is still on youtube (altho i dont know if he himself ever bothered to put it back up) and his video mocking the issue was put on youtube (and that one was put up by him) and it wasnt really an issue with youtube, thatguywiththeglasses.com was already running, he had to take it down from his website but immediatly a bagillion (or is the fictional word spelled bajillion?) other websites put it up, and not long after he got to put it back up because it was a bullshit charge and a bagillion (there i go with the fictional word im not sure how to spell again) doug fans bombarded john with emails anyways, back to my grumbling 26 Jan 12, 6:21 PM Pet_Girl US, 14 mths Lord_Uther wrote: slave_emma wrote: You can share the original movie, book, or whatever else you purchased with whomever as long as it is in its original form. I don't about the States but here in the UK the copyright slogan at the beginning of a dvd will say something along the lines of "The material on this DVD is copyrighted and intended for personal use only. You agree not to lend, borrow, hire or broadcast without express permission of the copyright holder". So technically, here in the UK anyway, it is a breach of copyright to lend a dvd to a friend. **Doesn't stop us though ** Yessir, they say the same thing here. Annnndddd.... it also doesn't stop us haha