I'm really worried about that. What about you?
If they SOMEHOW pass that POS, before the ink dries I'm sure we'll be blocked for no reason just because we're related to a iffy thing. And kiss vNES,VGBX,VSNES, and any other site with ROM's and ANYTHING close to being copyrighted good bye. It won't ever pass though, so I'm not too worried myself, although it is nice seeing a mini-revolt over it.
I know of several companies with grounds to file a complaint against retrousb.com and romhacking.net and AtariAge.
I called my representative:
My name is Damian Yerrick and I live in Fort Wayne, Indiana. I've called to ask you to oppose the Stop Online Piracy Act, House Resolution 3261, once it is reintroduced next month. I disagree with its provisions because I feel that weakening the Internet is the wrong approach to fighting copyright infringement.
I called both my senators:
My name is Damian Yerrick and I live in Fort Wayne, Indiana. I've called to ask you to vote no on cloture to the PROTECTIP ACT, Senate bill 968. I disagree with its provisions because I feel that weakening the Internet is the wrong approach to fighting copyright infringement.
tepples wrote:
I know of several companies with grounds to file a complaint against retrousb.com and romhacking.net and AtariAge.
Wait, thanks to SOPA and PIPA we can kiss romhacking.net goodbye?
This is really bad.
Quote:
And kiss vNES,VGBX,VSNES, and any other site with ROM's and ANYTHING close to being copyrighted good bye.
Well, there's always
torrent ROM sets
Wait, don't tell me...it's not about to be closed because of SOPA and PIPA?
For USA hosted websites, how is any of it different than the current DMCA? The ISP is already required to shut down access to a site when the rights holder notifies them, and the US gov takes domain names away without problems. This forum could already be shut down by Nintendo and others because of the NSFs.
The provision of the DMCA to which you refer is the OCILLA takedown procedure (17 USC 512). In the OCILLA procedure, both the takedown and the putback occur out of court. The copyright owner has to identify infringing copies specifically by their URL, allowing YouTube to take down, say, a single video. Furthermore, OCILLA requires a copyright owner to consider whether is authorized by law before filing a notice of infringement, and a copyright owner that fails to do so may be subject to sanctions (Lenz v. Universal).
In the SOPA/PROTECTIP procedure, on the other hand, as I understand it, the court system is involved much earlier in the process. The copyright owner gets a judge to rubber-stamp an order to take a whole site down, and the alleged infringer has to sue to get it back up.
Megaupload is no more. Wow. o.O
Yes but that isn't related to SOPA or anything like that. Hopefully it will go to show that new laws are not needed. Particular new overreaching laws.