Slashdot Mirror
UK MPs: Google Blocks Child Abuse Images, It Should Block Piracy Too
nk497 writes "If Google can block child abuse images, it can also block piracy sites, according to a report from MPs, who said they were 'unimpressed' by Google's 'derisorily ineffective' efforts to battle online piracy, according to a Commons Select Committee report looking into protecting creative industries. John Whittingdale MP, the chair of the Committee — and also a non-executive director at Audio Network, an online music catalogue — noted that Google manages to remove other illegal content. 'Google and others already work with international law enforcement to block for example child porn from search results and it has provided no coherent, responsible reason why it can't do the same for illegal, pirated content,' he said."
Because the best way to argue against them is with insults and the lack of an actual argument. Seriously, if you're going to start the debate, at least provide something tangible.
Just filter out every mention of UK Members of Parliament and their policies from your search results for, say, 28 days, and see how keen the censorious, self-aggrandizing, cockwombles are on compulsory filtering after that.
Child abuse and piracy are not comparable. Child abuse is human depravity pushed to such an extreme that is justifiable to use it as a reason to defy common sense. Piracy is simply deviation from the rule of law - it does not warrant ubiquitous censorship of the kind that is being proposed.
If you want censorship, you should be willing to accept censorship directly as well.
Child abuse is machine recognizable; piracy is not.
Pretty easy to understand, numb-nuts.
Child pornography is quite obvious without further investigation, copyright can be very complex and right can be claimed by a lot of people. The system can also easily abuse to remove perfectly legal content. But seems that UK MP like to compare pears and apples.... (or that they don't have a clue about what they are talking about)
Creation and possession of child porn £300 fine and 6 months suspended sentence.
Illegally downloading said child porn without the copyright holder permission - 10 years for each file and a max fine of $250,000 per image.
Copyright is theft!
The crux is - Copyright is a civil matter; but they've turned it into a criminal one.
Personally I still get all of my content legally (generally via rental now, ie LoveFilm and Spotify), but if the industries keep acting the way they are, they kind of get what they deserve.
You can't keep ignoring reality either. I have no idea of the real figures, but the vast majority of my friends watch TV shows and listen to music illegally. It kind of sucks, but it's how people are. Expecting everyone to ignore free sources of entertainment is slightly like expecting everyone to use film cameras when digital is available. Or expecting people to go into a dark room full of strangers just to watch a new movie. If they want to keep making money, they should embrace change, rather than fight it tooth and nail.
which is totally what she said
What a surprise. Start with the slam-dunk of getting them to ban CP (After all if you don't agree it should be banned you must be a pedo sympathiser) , then turn round and say "Well you can block that illegal content, what about this?"
What next, demand Google block sites of banned political parties? Disallow all dissenting opinions? Silence religions you don't like? This is why we shouldn't have allowed the thin end of the wedge in in the first place. Give centralised control an inch and it'll take a mile.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Nobody is entitled to make money
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
To reply to myself. Sentences for making child porn on the first page of search result is 25+ years. Texas being most awesome by handing out a 290 year sentence! Go Texas.
Exactly.
This is like saying that because the SWAT and the FBI handle situations involving murder and hostages, that those departments should be more than capable of finding my lost kitten.
Then proceeding to complain that they are not doing so.
They can't block "piracy sites" because they don't exist. I get my Linux images from these "pirate sites" so they're not pirate sites. It's user uploads that are the problem.
Detection of copyrighted material is also problematic in that it is not always readily apparent whether a particular entity has the legal right to distribute certain works and what does or does not constitute fair use and/or legal distribution. The works themselves are not illegal.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Okay a more concrete example. Would you consider censoring this very famous photo that appears in this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc). The photo meets all the mechanical criteria for a child abuse photo. Sure, it should be easy to put exceptions for such famous images into your child porn recognition algorithm, but this would mean erecting a prude's verion of the Great Firewall, crewed by gatekeepers who decide whether it's okay for the masses to see a controversial image.
It *is* an impossible task because while *all* child pornography is illegal - no exceptions - redistribution of copyrighted contents is illegal when the right owner didn't consent to it and legal when he did. It's the same thing as with photos of people - in some jurisdictions, you're only allowed to publish photos of people who consented to it (with perhaps some exceptions), but how do you divine the presence or absence of consent from the photo itself?
Ezekiel 23:20
Mission creep. It always happens. First it's to prevent "child porn" or "terrorism". Then someone gets a bright idea - "but we can get x this way too!". And then someone else wants to use it for their pet agenda. What you end up with is police in body armor and assault rifles storming your house to confiscate files in a civil (not even criminal!) case, Kim Dotcom style.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
They are if you choose to share it. If you don't want other people to know about it then keep it to yourself. Then only you and the NSA will know.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I want to know what we block after piracy?
If we can block child porn and pirate sites, we can also block everything else that somebody, somewhere doesn't like. Right?
Shooting the messenger isn't the way to stop piracy (or child porn for that matter). All it does is drive it underground.
No sig today...
Whatever this is, it is not "online piracy".
No ships have been illegally seized, not a single cutlass has been brandished. There has been no disturbance of the lawful transfer of goods from one entity to another. No one is being held for ransom.
Violating a licensing "agreement" involves no theft of moneys, nor theft of tangibles, nor theft of services. Making and distributing an unlicensed copy of software, a book, a movie, or music may in some cases reduce the potential for future sales, but that is not a reduction in current value. It only affects speculative value. That is not nice, and there should probably be some legal protection against it, but it is not theft.
Until the legislators who are attempting to write laws start using English words appropriately, there can be no good laws written to cover this new economic activity. Appropriating verbiage from maritime law because "piracy" sounds so menacing is bullshit, plain and simple. Perhaps those who are misusing the word so much should be sent to the waters off Somalia to learn what it means.
Will
So your base assumption is wrong.
I know right? Why use our brains when we "think" of the children? No need to have sentences that mesh with the crime. After all, why should there be any difference between the sentences for downloading a couple of images into your cache and kidnapping, violently raping, torturing, and then murdering a hundred children? I mean, that's practically the same thing right?
And no one is entitled to someone else's work.
;)
So I take it you don't pay taxes?
Snark aside, you have it absolutely correct. No one has as a "right" to your work. In the real world, however, that only works as long as you don't ever let your creations out of your head. As soon as you casually whistle that catchy little tune you wrote, in earshot of someone else - Game over (potentially). The universe now owns it, and you can go suck eggs.
For better or worse, compensating the author of a creative work very much depends on the charitable, even grateful, feelings those works inspire in their audience. I want my favorite bands to produce more, and do my best to get money to them; on the flip side of that, I loathe my favorite bands' labels, and wouldn't stop to piss on their execs in I found them dying of thirst in the Sahara. This leads to a bit of cognitive dissonance, obviously, which I personally resolve by doing my best to compensate the artists directly (concerts, merchandise, direct sales, etc) while shamelessly pirating anything actually released by the parasites that "own" them.
Disagreeing with the current political party. They DESPERATELY want that to be blocked.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Because they do it to me.
My personal information I never get paid for, yet companies pirate it from me daily.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I preordered Iron Man 3 on BR. It wasn't shipping yet, so I downloaded a copy.
What the fuck was their problem with making me wait to watch a movie I enjoyed with my kids?
They could just as easily sell the movies at the theatre. But they don't. It's still all about the buggy whips.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Good music was pirated to death
Actually, no, the heyday of music sales was also the heyday of Napster. Music sales drops directly correlate to (A) the lowered number of premiere band and album launches and (B) the music industry's lack of ability to forced-obsolescence much of their product compared to past years. Tapes wore out; Vinyl required great care. The music industry enjoyed a massive boost with CDs largely because they could resell the same old crap, plus all their "new acts", on CD and people would actually buy the various greatest-hit collections and album re-releases on CD because their old copies were degrading and not playing back at the same quality.
The nice thing about digital, though, is it doesn't degrade. And people have learned about transferring things device to device, and their RIGHT to do so.
There's also the nice rise of the single again, with people able to buy just the TRACKS they want rather than having to buy a shitty-ass album to get the one track they liked that was way overplayed on the radio from this summer's one-hit wonder. Great for consumers, lousy for coke-addled music execs who counted on selling CD albums at $19.99 forever.
The music industry is in decline because all they are producing is Biebers, Gagas, and twerking bimbos rather than elevating the best new acts. They do this because they can get the Biebers, Gagas, and twerking bimbos cheap and sign them to a long term contract early (much like Disney's "this is how we sell sex to 5 year old girls" tools, the Jonas Brothers, or the former trajectory of most Boy Bands).
What it would take for the music industry to stop the decline is to start producing a better product again. "Piracy" did not cause the Biebers, Gagas, etc. The relentless drive of one-hit wonder crap albums, tweeny-pop boybands, twerking bimbos, Lesbos Like Bieber, and on and on caused people to be leery of buying product sight-unseen.
Personally, I think most artists are lazy fucks who think that doing work for about 3 months should entitle them to a lifetime of luxury. I prefer to support people who actually play music. You know, concerts.
Nope, haven't bough music in years. But I have been to more than a few concerts.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Okay. I'm sure you can cite many examples of copyrighted child porn to back up your argument.
I think I know someone who can help you with that.
There is a big difference between Child Porn and Pirated content:
Pornographic pictures of children when seen can be objectively judged as child porn and easily filtered. If you see it, it's Illegal, and filter it. Save the hash- if you see the hash again, immediately block it.
Copyrighted content has to be judged if the person distributing it has clearances to distribute it. If you see a stream of a TV show, how do you know instantly (and automatically) that it's illegal? Even if you've found an illegal instance, you can't automatically block all subsequent instances as they may be Fair use, or authorized IE: song used as background on a commercial. Since it contains a copyrighted song, should google block it from YouTube automatically, even though the car company that posted the video has paperwork giving them clearance?
It's not easy to block copyright infringements without blocking valid uses. There is no valid use of Child Porn under the law.
From blocking things that are illegal everywhere to thing are illegal in some places.
The reason why child porn is blocked is because the person pictured is the underage victim of a crime
and the creation of child porn is a mala in se offense (illegal because its bad in of itself) because its the distribution of the product of child abuse.
software piracy is a malum prohibitum offense (illegal for statutory reasons).
The right to enforce copyright should lie with the copyright holder not the state. Not all copyright holders choose to exercise their rights or have constructively abandoned their rights (aka Abandonware), something the law has not been updated to reflect.