You can view the page at http://www.coolminiornot.com/articles/content.php?6988-sopa-blackout-18th-7am-gmt-to-7pm-gmt
Article: SOPA Blackout 18th - 7am GMT to 7pm GMT
- Thread starter Chern Ann
- Start date
itsacoyote
New member
I believe this article illustrates how possible it can become for domestic websites to be targeted as well. Overall SOPA/PIPA are wrong and I am glad that CoolMiniOrNot is joining the blackout.
funnymouth
Active member
good call.
LordWehrmacht
New member
Thank you Chern.... I fully support this. However I will really really really miss it tomorrow. I think im addicted.
RangerRuss
New member
Way to go! The more websites that join the strike feeling that they might be effected by SOPA/PIPA, the more people will be able to see how much of an impact the bill(s) could actually have.
wiccanpony
Official Freak Bar Witch
raising fist into air ...... I stand my geek brothers and sisters, (Witch reliving the 60s)
Perhaps this video posted at Wordpress will help sort things out: http://vimeo.com/31100268 in other words, terrible for all who use the internet. Happy CMON is on board.
Milosh
New member
I understand why some websites have something to possibly fear, but if one is going to protest one should protest all the way. Having your cake and eating it too certainly applies to one of the "protesting" websites I saw. The main page of the website in question had blocked their non/little revenue paticipant pages in "protest" but amazingly their revenue producing shopping pages were still open for shoppers to spend money. Things like that kills the meaning behind protesting in the first place. I won't name the site in question out of respect for capitalism but my view of them has forever changed.
All it would take for a cutoff to be filed against CoolMiniOrNot would be for someone to post a picture of a miniature that was sculpted to resemble a copyrighted character, or a link to a site where you could buy such a miniature -- or even a legally-produced and -purchased authorized miniature that is being used in a way that the organization holding the copyright doesn't like. It doesn't matter whether the miniature is actually infringing or not, or whether the organization filing the claim actually has a copyright; they merely have to be able to say afterward that they believed that the material infringed on one of their copyrights -- a pitifully low hurdle to surmount.
The largest target in our entire industry is GW, as most of their infrastructure is based outside the US. Since their products draw so much inspiration from popular culture and fantasy tropes, they could conceivably come under attack from all sides very quickly indeed. They are simply a big fish in a very small pond, SOPA/PIPA would crush GW's online presence with the MPAA sharks swimming about. The only reason why movie studios and music labels are for this is because they have a tacit agreement not to attack each other, much like how having a very large patent portfolio is both defensive as well as offensive (any attack will be mutually destructive).
For example, with Egypt's ludicrous attempt to copyright the Pyramids, under the reciprocal Berne convention of which the USA is a signatory, the Egyptian government would then be able to establish a "good faith" belief that the Necron Monolith breaches their alleged copyright on the Pyramids, that images of Monoliths also infringe these copyrights, that sale of Monoliths are counterfeit, and with a very low bar of procedure or evidence, have GW's site shutdown and/or delisted, and have Visa stop doing business with GW. Of course, GW would be free to fight this and have their site and business relationships re-established weeks later, but frankly why would Visa want to work with GW again? It wouldn't be worth the hassle. And since Egypt had a "good faith" belief of infringement (even though it was stupid and wrong), they could cause all this damage to GW without recourse or compensation to GW. This is obviously insane, and yet one possible way to interpret this very broadly worded legislation.
For example, with Egypt's ludicrous attempt to copyright the Pyramids, under the reciprocal Berne convention of which the USA is a signatory, the Egyptian government would then be able to establish a "good faith" belief that the Necron Monolith breaches their alleged copyright on the Pyramids, that images of Monoliths also infringe these copyrights, that sale of Monoliths are counterfeit, and with a very low bar of procedure or evidence, have GW's site shutdown and/or delisted, and have Visa stop doing business with GW. Of course, GW would be free to fight this and have their site and business relationships re-established weeks later, but frankly why would Visa want to work with GW again? It wouldn't be worth the hassle. And since Egypt had a "good faith" belief of infringement (even though it was stupid and wrong), they could cause all this damage to GW without recourse or compensation to GW. This is obviously insane, and yet one possible way to interpret this very broadly worded legislation.
