-
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access.
By joining you will gain full access to thousands of Videos, Pictures & Much More.
Membership is absolutely FREE and registration is FAST & SIMPLE so please, Register Today and join one of the friendliest communities on the net!
You must be at least 18 years old to legally access this forum. -
Hello Guest,
Thanks for remaining an active member on GayHeaven. We hope you've enjoyed the forum so far.
Our records indicate that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks. Why not dismiss this notice & make your next post today by doing one of the following:
- General Discussion Area - Engage in a conversation with other members.
- Gay Picture Collections - Share any pictures you may have collected from blogs and other sites. Don't know how to post? Click HERE to visit our easy 3-steps tutorial for picture posting.
- Show Yourself Off - Brave enough to post your own pictures or videos? Let us see, enjoy & comment on that for you.
- Gay Clips - Start sharing hot video clips you may have. Don't know how to get started? Click HERE to view our detailed tutorial for video posting.
Active and contributing members will earn special ranks. Click HERE to view the full list of ranks & privileges given to active members & how you can easily obtain them.
Please do not flood the forum with "Thank you" posts. Instead, please use the "thanks button"
We Hope you enjoy the forum & thanks for your efforts!
The GayHeaven Team.
Filesonic is afraid of SOPA
- Thread starter gaypirate
- Start date
I
iSlut
Guest
SOPA has not passed and now probably will never pass. What happened last week to MegaUpload had nothing to do with SOPA. The grand jury investigation into MegaUpload began in 2010 and the FBI investigation in 2008, long before SOPA was even drafted. The grand jury indictment was handed down several weeks ago and only unsealed last week because of the arrests, which have been in the planning for weeks.
FileSonic is not afraid of SOPA because SOPA is not law. FileSonic is afraid because it has servers in the US and is thus within US jurisdiction.
FileSonic and FileServe's recent action to stop third-party downloads is pointless legally and, if anything, subjects them to greater legal liability because they're tacitly admitting they were doing something wrong in the past. It does not protect them from criminal prosecution. One major portion of the Department of Justice's case against MegaUpload deals with a practice they stopped last year -- paying for downloads. They stopped the practice on their own, but that doesn't prevent prosecution for what they did before they stopped the practice.
FileSonic is not afraid of SOPA because SOPA is not law. FileSonic is afraid because it has servers in the US and is thus within US jurisdiction.
FileSonic and FileServe's recent action to stop third-party downloads is pointless legally and, if anything, subjects them to greater legal liability because they're tacitly admitting they were doing something wrong in the past. It does not protect them from criminal prosecution. One major portion of the Department of Justice's case against MegaUpload deals with a practice they stopped last year -- paying for downloads. They stopped the practice on their own, but that doesn't prevent prosecution for what they did before they stopped the practice.
I think what the OP means is that its not that SOPA was going to directly do anything, but rather the publicity is giving a lot of attention to these filesharing sites, which what makes people believe is the reason for the FBI sacking megaupload. Hope what I said was clear.
gb2000ie
Super Vip
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2010
- Messages
- 4,522
- Reaction score
- 419
- Points
- 0
The Megaupload thing was YEARS in the making, grand jury and all - they didn't just do this one a whim because SOPA reminded them that piracy exists.
I'm so fed up of the fact-free zone around all this.
B.
I know that, but I don't think many people do.
S
SimplyJakeAndAlex
Guest
Alright lets end this in beauty. Alex and I own a condo in San Francisco, California to which we rent out when we're not there... last time we went was about 2 years ago. This obviously give us some rights. There was a website where we could just electronically sign and this was directly sent to our Senator... which sent us back this email... sure it's a general sent out but the state of California was indeed the first one interested in this new Act. So read it... and that's your conclusion.
Dear Jake:
Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act," commonly known as the "PROTECT IP Act."
The "PROTECT IP Act" (S. 968) gives copyright and trademark owners and the U.S. Department of Justice authority to take action against websites "dedicated to infringing activities." These are websites that have "no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating" copyright infringement, the sale of goods with a counterfeit trademark, or the evasion of technological measures designed to protect against copying. I'm sorry to say that theft of intellectual property is a major problem and has primarily adversely affected the American motion picture industry.
I voted for the "PROTECT IP Act" when it came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but I always had reservations about several aspects of the bill.
First, I oppose censorship and am working to make sure the bill protects First Amendment rights to free speech. In addition, as far back as 2010, I raised concerns about the website blocking provision. I was pleased Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced this provision would be removed from the bill. I was also concerned that the overbroad language of the bill could encompass non-pirate websites and filed an amendment to fix this problem. Finally, I worked to alleviate undue burdens on Internet advertising services and to minimize the risk of litigation on growing technology businesses.
On May 26, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the "PROTECT IP Act" by voice vote for consideration by the full Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced on January 20, 2012, that he was postponing a procedural vote on this bill. I believe postponing this vote was the right thing to do. In order to move forward, the bill must be changed to prevent it from harming legitimate businesses and Internet users in the process of protecting copyrights and trademarks. In other words, the bill must be fair and balanced.
In mid-January, I convened a meeting in San Francisco with Google, Yahoo! and Facebook to hear valid concerns of high-tech businesses and public interest groups. I have spoken again with leaders at Google about a path forward on this bill. My goal is to do everything I can to bring all sides together – including copyright owners, high-tech and my colleagues – to produce a fair and balanced bill.
As you may be aware, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) has introduced the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (H.R. 3261), which is similar to the "PROTECT IP Act", in the House of Representatives. Please know I will keep your thoughts in mind should the Senate proceed to a vote on either of these bills.
Once again, thank you for sharing your views. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (000) 000-0000.
Wishing you a happy 2012.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
swallowmeinsf
New member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2009
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Enough!
TOS = Terms of Service, referring to the agreement the uploader of the file has with the hosting service. A TOS violation means the hosting service has decided that the member who uploaded the file has violated the agreement.
The host can decide on a violation on its own, but usually does so when a third party complains. The third party could be the copyright owner, of course (that's fair), but it could be anybody, including third parties who have no involvement with the content at all, for example, corporate, political or religious groups with an agenda who claim to be offended by the material. They don't have to provide any proof, either.
We are entering a dark and dangerous period of uncertainty about this issue. In view of the developments of the past several weeks, it now stands that anybody who wants to share something online is guilty until proven innocent.
The burden of proof should be on the complainers! The file sharing hosts should be required to reveal who filed the complaint!
Outraged about this? Send an email to Congress! And don't forget to vote in November!
TOS = Terms of Service, referring to the agreement the uploader of the file has with the hosting service. A TOS violation means the hosting service has decided that the member who uploaded the file has violated the agreement.
The host can decide on a violation on its own, but usually does so when a third party complains. The third party could be the copyright owner, of course (that's fair), but it could be anybody, including third parties who have no involvement with the content at all, for example, corporate, political or religious groups with an agenda who claim to be offended by the material. They don't have to provide any proof, either.
We are entering a dark and dangerous period of uncertainty about this issue. In view of the developments of the past several weeks, it now stands that anybody who wants to share something online is guilty until proven innocent.
The burden of proof should be on the complainers! The file sharing hosts should be required to reveal who filed the complaint!
Outraged about this? Send an email to Congress! And don't forget to vote in November!
