Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
this can affect tasbeha sign this petition on google !!! please !
Tell Congress: Don’t censor the Web
Fighting online piracy is important. The most effective way to shut down pirate websites is through targeted legislation that cuts off their funding. There’s no need to make American social networks, blogs and search engines censor the Internet or undermine the existing laws that have enabled the Web to thrive, creating millions of U.S. jobs. if this passes it can affect Tasbeha.org !!
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
Fighting online piracy is important. The most effective way to shut down pirate websites is through targeted legislation that cuts off their funding. There’s no need to make American social networks, blogs and search engines censor the Internet or undermine the existing laws that have enabled the Web to thrive, creating millions of U.S. jobs. if this passes it can affect Tasbeha.org !!
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
Comments
Google's interests has nothing to do a thriving web or US jobs. Google is only interested in retaining control. Their solution of targeting legislation to cut off their funding is a joke because they know such targeted legislation is doomed to fail.
There are some posts here that have lyrics or link to websites hosting lyrics of modern songs in critique of them. Also many people have linked to upload websites to download a hymn or file. If the bill passes, theoretically, Tasbeha could be held responsible for this (posting copyrighted content or linking to blacklisted websites) and blocked from direct access in the USA.
nope. we don't post the links. users do.
ReturnOrthodoxy
[quote author=servant33 link=topic=12823.msg150757#msg150757 date=1326933066]
There are some posts here that have lyrics or link to websites hosting lyrics of modern songs in critique of them. Also many people have linked to upload websites to download a hymn or file. If the bill passes, theoretically, Tasbeha could be held responsible for this (posting copyrighted content or linking to blacklisted websites) and blocked from direct access in the USA.
nope. we don't post the links. users do.
Exactly! That's why the bill is horrible! Because websites WOULD be made responsible for what content their users posted. Each website would have to be responsible for censoring its content against content infringement that users post or else the site itself (not the users) would be punished. You can read more about this here:
http://www.bradsreader.com/2012/01/sopapipa-explained-why-you-should-care/
To use Wikipedia, simply go to the page you want, and once the page loads, right before the Black screen indicating the blackout comes up, press the escape key. You will have to do this for every wikipedia article you go on. You have to time it right though.
ReturnOrthodoxy
=) I hope that wasn't copyrighted
Exactly! That's why the bill is horrible! Because websites WOULD be made responsible for what content their users posted. Each website would have to be responsible for censoring its content against content infringement that users post or else the site itself (not the users) would be punished.
I still don't see a problem. If a medical assistant stole money from a patient, isn't the doctor and/or the hospital responsible for any consequences? This is part of reality. If a user posts illegal material, the website shares the consequences/liability. And if a user posts illegal material, we shouldn't be concerned about what will happen to the website. We should be concerned about what will happen to the user in the final judgment.
[quote author=servant33 link=topic=12823.msg150779#msg150779 date=1326939925]
Exactly! That's why the bill is horrible! Because websites WOULD be made responsible for what content their users posted. Each website would have to be responsible for censoring its content against content infringement that users post or else the site itself (not the users) would be punished.
I still don't see a problem. If a medical assistant stole money from a patient, isn't the doctor and/or the hospital responsible for any consequences? This is part of reality. If a user posts illegal material, the website shares the consequences/liability. And if a user posts illegal material, we shouldn't be concerned about what will happen to the website. We should be concerned about what will happen to the user in the final judgment.
You don't see a problem?!! Think of it like this. Let's say i really hate tasbeha.org so i will make an account and put links to movies that are bootlegged or free ms office just to take down the site. That's why this is a stupid bill.
You don't see a problem?!! Think of it like this. Let's say i really hate tasbeha.org so i will make an account and put links to movies that are bootlegged or free ms office just to take down the site. That's why this is a stupid bill.
This is no different than the medical assistant embezzlement. The onus is on sites like tasbeha.org to take preventative actions to prevent people from putting links of pirated material.
Why are we siding with big business who make it easy for piracy instead of defending the authors and owners who had their work stolen? Are we inclined to side with big business because we just don't want to loose the ability to use pirated material? Is this not a reflection of our own ethical shortcomings?
I support internet piracy and to show that, I give my material away for free. I still offer the paperback BUT you are only paying for the actual printing of it.
People calm down SOPA is not going to pass anyways. The irony is that most of the congressmen are the same people who benefit the most from online piracy no way they are going to restrict it!
How do they benefit from piracy?
Online piracy has a postive impact on the revenues of third party companies, owned by some congressmen. For instance, many companies based on movie characters experiance a huge increase in revenues due to the populariy of movies which are enhanced by pirated movies.
Profiting from illegal pirating or even finding loop holes to benefit from illegal pirating is a symptom of a corrupt society. When greed and money triumph over ethical responsibility, we are "most miserable men".
Markmarocs,
I have a hard time believing that any local, state, federal or international government will pass any form of unlimited censorship power. If any law is passed restricting internet content, it will be based on specific criteria and such censhorship power will be heavily regulated - unlike the internet where there is zero regulation. The internet giants like Google are starting their fear propaganda tactics, hoping people will respond to fear rather than common sense and ethics.
[quote author=Copticandproud link=topic=12823.msg150830#msg150830 date=1327026061]
Online piracy has a postive impact on the revenues of third party companies, owned by some congressmen. For instance, many companies based on movie characters experiance a huge increase in revenues due to the populariy of movies which are enhanced by pirated movies.
Profiting from illegal pirating or even finding loop holes to benefit from illegal pirating is a symptom of a corrupt society. When greed and money triumph over ethical responsibility, we are "most miserable men".
Well, are not most of the people out there are miserable?
True, but the problem is few can attain the title of a 'true Christian'. What is even worse, is the huge gap between those of that high standerd and everybody else...
That doesn't mean we put down our standards. However we use our wisdom to guide those who are everybody else, in a way that is loving.
Eg I don't think this is a suitable topic to address in church, there are more important things to talk about.
Eg I don't think this is a suitable topic to address in church, there are more important things to talk about.
The topic boils down to tolerance of stealing, applying Christian standards, ethical responsibility, preaching the Gospel through your actions, and not following the world's desire for greed and money. These are not suitable topics to address in church? What then is suitable?
[quote author=qawe link=topic=12823.msg150991#msg150991 date=1327369184]
Eg I don't think this is a suitable topic to address in church, there are more important things to talk about.
The topic boils down to tolerance of stealing, applying Christian standards, ethical responsibility, preaching the Gospel through your actions, and not following the world's desire for greed and money. These are not suitable topics to address in church? What then is suitable?
I'm not saying that if asked we should blindly approve such actions, but there are soooo many other topics that ppl would be more likely to gain spiritual benefit from.
There are cultural reasons as well why telling ppl to spend more money would not go down well. There are other serious (possibly more serious) deficiencies within the congregations which have a far greater chance of making a difference. Have you ever heard a sermon on piracy? I'm arguing for the status quo in this regard.
I'm not saying that if asked we should blindly approve such actions, but there are soooo many other topics that ppl would be more likely to gain spiritual benefit from.
That's a really broad generalization that has no justification. How do you know what topics people may or may not benefit from? What gives anyone the right to prioritize sin or deficiencies? The most serious sin is the sin of frivolity mixed with deception. It is the classical mark of Satan to deceive the elect by making sin socially acceptable. He does this by deceiving people into thinking a sin is not a sin, or at least not significant enough to repent from. It is really irrelevant if a congregation suffers from gossip instead of homosexuality. Sin is sin. Justifying sin by some pseudo-prioritization is only adding another sin on sin.
Reluctance to spend money is different than stealing. Piracy is stealing. And yes, I have heard many sermons on stealing. And since when did the status quo become our standard? St Athanasius is not famous for following the status quo to accept sin and heresy. He is famous and venerated for challenging the status quo by his lonesome self as "contra mondum". Should we not imitate him as he imitated Christ?