01-16-2012, 08:09 AM
To start with, we work hard to keep copyrighted material from appearing here without the owners permission. If we see any, or if it's reported we will deal with it immediately. We have yet to have an owner of copyright material request we remove it, but we are self-policing in that respect so if you see something that you know shouldn't be here without permission, than we'd appreciate it if you'd let us know.
Secondly, I'm not defending the bill, it is another way the government is taking an approach to a problem that could have a devastating affect on some innocent people. That being said, we are all aware of the reason behind this bill, the protection of mass violations where sites allow you to upload and download music and movies that they know are protected and they are doing it without compensation or permission of those that spent time and money creating these things. I don't believe that someone is going to get out a court order to have a site shut down because of one or two incidents where a copyright photo is displayed without permission. I would think that the courts would require them to show that they made an attempt to get the material removed first. They will be going after large sites that allow the exchange of these kinds of material on a continuing basis. However, by taking the shotgun approach, they may not only hit their targets, but a few stray pellets can hit a few surrounding things that they weren't intending to hit.
It is fine that some sites are supporting this protest, but I think having Google, YouTube or Facebook shutting down for a day would have a bigger influence than a few forums like ours doing so. My personal opinion is that the bill will never make it into law the way it's written, and if it does, I do think it will be challenged in court very quickly. I would also think it would be difficult to enforce since many of these sites are in other countries.
Secondly, I'm not defending the bill, it is another way the government is taking an approach to a problem that could have a devastating affect on some innocent people. That being said, we are all aware of the reason behind this bill, the protection of mass violations where sites allow you to upload and download music and movies that they know are protected and they are doing it without compensation or permission of those that spent time and money creating these things. I don't believe that someone is going to get out a court order to have a site shut down because of one or two incidents where a copyright photo is displayed without permission. I would think that the courts would require them to show that they made an attempt to get the material removed first. They will be going after large sites that allow the exchange of these kinds of material on a continuing basis. However, by taking the shotgun approach, they may not only hit their targets, but a few stray pellets can hit a few surrounding things that they weren't intending to hit.
It is fine that some sites are supporting this protest, but I think having Google, YouTube or Facebook shutting down for a day would have a bigger influence than a few forums like ours doing so. My personal opinion is that the bill will never make it into law the way it's written, and if it does, I do think it will be challenged in court very quickly. I would also think it would be difficult to enforce since many of these sites are in other countries.
Don (ezdays) Day
Board administrator and
founder of the CANYON STATE RAILROAD
Board administrator and
founder of the CANYON STATE RAILROAD