Profile
Search
Register
Log in
MasterCard willing to cut off pirate sites
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
b.Freyer



Joined: 07 Dec 2010
Posts: 70
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
MasterCard willing to cut off pirate sites  Reply with quote  

I was doing some web surfing and came across this

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20025879-261.html
Post Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:13 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
b.Freyer



Joined: 07 Dec 2010
Posts: 70
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
 Reply with quote  

Shocked that no one has anything to say about this lol
Post Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:07 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Plum Puddin'



Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1832
Location: Run Ebola, Run.
 Reply with quote  

As long as i can keep using it to donate to my violent racial hate groups, snuff sites, & the westboro baptists i think i'm ok with this.
Post Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:38 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
b.Freyer



Joined: 07 Dec 2010
Posts: 70
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
 Reply with quote  

Plum Puddin' wrote:
As long as i can keep using it to donate to my violent racial hate groups, snuff sites, & the westboro baptists i think i'm ok with this.


Lol funny
Post Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:39 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Plum Puddin'



Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1832
Location: Run Ebola, Run.
 Reply with quote  

But really, who pays for pirated shit?

If you want to pirate a program/album/video of 3 monkeys riding a dog, you dont find a pirate site that will 'sell' it to you.

A swashbuckler doesnt pay for his ship.

Arrgh.

Post Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:50 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
b.Freyer



Joined: 07 Dec 2010
Posts: 70
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
 Reply with quote  

That's a good question, who does pay for pirated material? I don't do it for a few reasons, so I don't know where you pay for that at?
Post Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:05 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MF Noob



Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 126
 Reply with quote  

Well apparently no one really read the article. If you posted the article along with the link maybe this could have kicked off a better discussion.

The "payment" comes from ads that are placed on these pirated websites. Among other things, Mastercard is talking about disallowing ad payments that are generated by clicks that happen on sites that offer illegal downloads. Or something like that. How will this be implemented? Is this just a story about Mastercard trying to look cool in front of their friends when they actually don't have the muscle power to make actual moves?
Post Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:19 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
b.Freyer



Joined: 07 Dec 2010
Posts: 70
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
 Reply with quote  

MF Noob wrote:
Well apparently no one really read the article. If you posted the article along with the link maybe this could have kicked off a better discussion.

The "payment" comes from ads that are placed on these pirated websites. Among other things, Mastercard is talking about disallowing ad payments that are generated by clicks that happen on sites that offer illegal downloads. Or something like that. How will this be implemented? Is this just a story about Mastercard trying to look cool in front of their friends when they actually don't have the muscle power to make actual moves?


I read it, and from what I was taking from where it talked about signing for a membership and paying with PayPal.
Post Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:32 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
b.Freyer



Joined: 07 Dec 2010
Posts: 70
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
Here's the article  Reply with quote  

MasterCard, is willing to stop processing transactions from sites trafficking in pirated music, movies, games, and other digital copyrighted content.


Lobbyists working for MasterCard have told trade groups from the entertainment sector that the credit card company is supportive of The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, an antipiracy bill introduced into the Senate last September, sources with knowledge of the talks tell CNET.


Backed by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and committee member Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah), the bill would authorize the Department of Justice to shut down domain names of U.S.-based Web sites judged to be dealing in pirated content and also have the power to order Internet service providers, payment processors, and online ad networks in the United States to cease doing business with overseas pirates sites. Opponents of the law say it will give the government sweeping powers to censor U.S. citizens.

Representatives from MasterCard, Visa, and American Express did not respond to interview requests.

When asked for a comment about the ongoing talks between MasterCard and the entertainment sector, the music industry's trade group, the Recording Industry Association of America, issued a statement from Mitch Glazier, executive vice president of government and industry relations.

"MasterCard in particular deserves credit for its proactive approach to addressing rogue Web sites that dupe consumers," Glazier said. "They have reached out to us and others in the entertainment community to forge what we think will be a productive and effective partnership."

"MasterCard in particular deserves credit for its proactive approach to addressing rogue Web sites that dupe consumers."
--Mitch Glazier, RIAA exec

The antipiracy strategy of large Hollywood studios and music labels is evolving and is now less about filing lawsuits against site operators and individual file sharers. Big media companies now seem intent on cutting off sources of income for illegal file-sharing and streaming sites. Many of these operations make money by posting ads from U.S. ad networks, including Google. They also charge for "premium services" such as larger storage capacity.

One of the sites the entertainment industry says offers access to unauthorized copies of films is Megaupload. To obtain a membership to the site, one can pay with PayPal, Visa, MasterCard, or American Express. There are certainly other ways for sites to accept payment than these and the entertainment industry knows this. They also know that many people are still leery of online transactions, even with stalwart payment methods.

The goal of the entertainment sector is to discourage as many people as possible from doing business with pirate sites.

To that end, the MPAA, RIAA, and other trade groups have pressured payment services, ad networks, and ISPs to do more piracy fighting. For some of these companies, Leahy's bill seems to have helped spur people into action.

Two weeks ago, Google announced it would improve antipiracy efforts, including a promise to do more to keep Web sites that provide infringing materials out of AdSense, the company's advertising program that pays Web sites for hosting ads.


In addition, the Interactive Advertising Bureau, the trade group representing 470 members that account for more than 86 percent of U.S. online advertising, says it also wants to work with the entertainment industry and lawmakers on cutting off pirates.

But according to Mike Zaneis, the IAB's general counsel, the group wants to find a way to thwart "rogue sites" without harming the ad business. He said one thing that all the parties must understand is that serving ads online is complicated and that often a company serving ads has no idea where the ad will end up.

"There's a commitment here to work with the content community and senators Hatch and Leahy," Zaneis said. "We want to find the best option and do what everybody wants, which is to cut off funding to the rogue sites."
Recently Viewed Products
My Lists
TechTracker
Post Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:33 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19374
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

I love it when my money tells me what I can and can't buy with it.
Post Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:30 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
MF Noob



Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 126
 Reply with quote  

Ya mean like crack and child pornography? My money says "IN GOD WE TRUST"

What's yours say?!?! HUH???
Post Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:26 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2023
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure every one of my credit cards has something in the service agreement saying that I can't use their card to pay for illegal goods or services. The ire of Anonymous types should be against the government legislative bodies who pass laws criminalizing this stuff, and against the IP companies who lobby those bodies. To the extent that b.Freyer may be encouraging that kind of continued action against Mastercard, b.Freyer is engaging in the same sort of foolishness as the people who are DDoSing Spamhaus because of that organization's apparently-truthful warnings that wikileaks.info is a malware site not in any way associated with Wikileaks itself.

What Mastercard is talking about supporting here isn't really all that different than Visa using their PCI security standards to kick a shitload of porn merchants out of their credit card networks. It's about forcing the middleware companies who produce tools (AdSense, affiliate marketing tools, PayPal, etc) that ultimately fund greyware operations to do a better job of self-policing their customer base for illegal activity.

I actually support the law (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3804.RS:) -- putting these powers into the framework of explicit statute takes companies like MasterCard, Amazon, and PayPal out of a legal and political grey area with respects to things like the pressure they were under to de-fund and de-host Wikileaks. The biggest areas of criticism against those companies for their choices regarding Wikileaks was that nothing in law required them to take those actions; taking the actions anyway exposes them to legal repercussions not unlike the ones major phone companies had after the NSA wiretapping stuff during the Bush years. Having explicit laws on the books codifies an existing relationship between major Internet companies and the United States government, which has the positive side effect of putting it more squarely in the oversight of our courts.

If our government is going to be able to compel companies like Mastercard, PayPal, etc. to knock sites off of the Internet, I would much rather that the mechanism our government is using to do that be a legal mechanism rather than an extra-legal one.

That being said, in the long run these kinds of laws are probably only going to accelerate the coming legal crisis about the USG's direct soverign authority over the company (ICANN) which effectively owns the root DNS servers. An alternate DNS system outside the U.S. government's jurisdiction is a necessary prerequisite to effective cyberwar against us; cavalier abuse of our control over ICANN to help people like the MPAA and the RIAA resolve strictly civil issues probably only hastens the establishment of that alt-root system.
Post Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:08 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TurnpikeGates



Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 517
Location: Bay Area
 Reply with quote  

Mark in Minnesota wrote:
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure every one of my credit cards has something in the service agreement saying that I can't use their card to pay for illegal goods or services. The ire of Anonymous types should be against the government legislative bodies who pass laws criminalizing this stuff, and against the IP companies who lobby those bodies. To the extent that b.Freyer may be encouraging that kind of continued action against Mastercard, b.Freyer is engaging in the same sort of foolishness as the people who are DDoSing Spamhaus because of that organization's apparently-truthful warnings that wikileaks.info is a malware site not in any way associated with Wikileaks itself.

What Mastercard is talking about supporting here isn't really all that different than Visa using their PCI security standards to kick a shitload of porn merchants out of their credit card networks. It's about forcing the middleware companies who produce tools (AdSense, affiliate marketing tools, PayPal, etc) that ultimately fund greyware operations to do a better job of self-policing their customer base for illegal activity.

I actually support the law (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3804.RS:) -- putting these powers into the framework of explicit statute takes companies like MasterCard, Amazon, and PayPal out of a legal and political grey area with respects to things like the pressure they were under to de-fund and de-host Wikileaks. The biggest areas of criticism against those companies for their choices regarding Wikileaks was that nothing in law required them to take those actions; taking the actions anyway exposes them to legal repercussions not unlike the ones major phone companies had after the NSA wiretapping stuff during the Bush years. Having explicit laws on the books codifies an existing relationship between major Internet companies and the United States government, which has the positive side effect of putting it more squarely in the oversight of our courts.

If our government is going to be able to compel companies like Mastercard, PayPal, etc. to knock sites off of the Internet, I would much rather that the mechanism our government is using to do that be a legal mechanism rather than an extra-legal one.

That being said, in the long run these kinds of laws are probably only going to accelerate the coming legal crisis about the USG's direct soverign authority over the company (ICANN) which effectively owns the root DNS servers. An alternate DNS system outside the U.S. government's jurisdiction is a necessary prerequisite to effective cyberwar against us; cavalier abuse of our control over ICANN to help people like the MPAA and the RIAA resolve strictly civil issues probably only hastens the establishment of that alt-root system.


By golly, you may just have changed my mind.


Maybe.
Post Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:14 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2023
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

I'm ambivalent myself, as the last paragraph in my post indicated. The timing of the bill being voted out of committee is also a little suspect.

I just sent the following to Amy Klobuchar's office, as she sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee that unanimously voted the bill onto the Senate floor during this year's lame duck session.


Quote:

Senator Klobuchar,

I have recently been involved in some online discussions on S.3804, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee recently unanimously passed to the full Senate over the apparent objections of groups including the EFF and the ACLU.

Such objections are not surprising to me, since I have now read the text of S.3804 and note that it appears to require American ISPs to block their end-users from accessing any site that appears on a DOJ-maintained list of foreign websites that do not adhere to a specific set of American laws.

Takedowns of the exact sort that would be passed into law by this bill were recently exercised against Wikileaks, apparently using extra-legal government pressure rather than statutory powers of the kind that S.3804 grants. While I would hope that this law might prevent the United States government from pressuring corporations into doing things above and beyond the requirements of the law that could get them sued by their customers, I think there's significant debate over whether the government should have pressured Amazon, PayPal, Mastercard, et al to cut their ties with Wikileaks in the first place. Expansion of powers that are already (in the eyes of some) being misused seems like an idea that merits some public defense.

Additionally, the portions of the bill requiring ISPs to block access to non-domestic websites on the DOJ's ban list seem dilutive to our long-standing message that China, Iran, and other repressive and authoritarian regimes should give its citizens free and unfettered access to the Internet.

As you sit on the committee that unanimously voted this bill out of committee a mere four days before public mention of the coming Cablegate leaks was first made by Wikileaks, I was hoping your office would be willing to send me some information on the bill's history and your specific rationale for voting it out of committee.


I still don't blame Mastercard for supporting this, as it takes them and their industry peers out of an impossible position--but at the same time I'm not sure I want my Senator putting it into law either.

(edit: sending the same thing to Al Franken, as he also sits on Judiciary...)
Post Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:58 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
OM3N



Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 1297
Location: Thailand
 Reply with quote  

Mark in Minnesota wrote:
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure every one of my credit cards has something in the service agreement saying that I can't use their card to pay for illegal goods or services. The ire of Anonymous types should be against the government legislative bodies who pass laws criminalizing this stuff, and against the IP companies who lobby those bodies. To the extent that b.Freyer may be encouraging that kind of continued action against Mastercard, b.Freyer is engaging in the same sort of foolishness as the people who are DDoSing Spamhaus because of that organization's apparently-truthful warnings that wikileaks.info is a malware site not in any way associated with Wikileaks itself.

What Mastercard is talking about supporting here isn't really all that different than Visa using their PCI security standards to kick a shitload of porn merchants out of their credit card networks. It's about forcing the middleware companies who produce tools (AdSense, affiliate marketing tools, PayPal, etc) that ultimately fund greyware operations to do a better job of self-policing their customer base for illegal activity.

I actually support the law (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3804.RS:) -- putting these powers into the framework of explicit statute takes companies like MasterCard, Amazon, and PayPal out of a legal and political grey area with respects to things like the pressure they were under to de-fund and de-host Wikileaks. The biggest areas of criticism against those companies for their choices regarding Wikileaks was that nothing in law required them to take those actions; taking the actions anyway exposes them to legal repercussions not unlike the ones major phone companies had after the NSA wiretapping stuff during the Bush years. Having explicit laws on the books codifies an existing relationship between major Internet companies and the United States government, which has the positive side effect of putting it more squarely in the oversight of our courts.

If our government is going to be able to compel companies like Mastercard, PayPal, etc. to knock sites off of the Internet, I would much rather that the mechanism our government is using to do that be a legal mechanism rather than an extra-legal one.

That being said, in the long run these kinds of laws are probably only going to accelerate the coming legal crisis about the USG's direct soverign authority over the company (ICANN) which effectively owns the root DNS servers. An alternate DNS system outside the U.S. government's jurisdiction is a necessary prerequisite to effective cyberwar against us; cavalier abuse of our control over ICANN to help people like the MPAA and the RIAA resolve strictly civil issues probably only hastens the establishment of that alt-root system.


I'm pretty sure that everyone on this forum would agree with what you just said.

I'm 100% sure that I wish I was as eloquent and smart as you.

Mark for Pres. 2012!
Post Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:48 pm
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Wed Nov 26, 2014 2:37 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon