| Author | Message | ||
     Xdigitalx |
Whoever owns the rights to that music would disagree. At that point, look at it as a business transaction. MJ didn't buy the Beatle's music so everyone could get it for free. (extreme example) If it all was only about the music, it would all be free. MJ:"It's just a great move, a corporate, entrepreneurial thing to do... It's smart business. It's about growth. Everything in life to me is about growth." | ||
| Just_ziptab |
So the entertainment industry isn't making any money??? Click:http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross What are they doing with all that money? | ||
| J2blue |
Whoever owns the rights? Another link of short duration should suffice here: http://tinyurl.com/82t68xv Going back to the intent of the framers of the constitution it should be obvious how ludicrous it was(to them) that anyone other than the author or inventor can ever "own" those rights. The modern atmosphere of intellectual property is guided by the principle of most expensive lawyers. That is why so many people object first to the assertion of rights over material that is not given for its creator, then they object to the draconian methods employed to enforce those rights. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Paying the salaries of some of the 1% ? But that doesn't give anybody the right to steal from them. | ||
| Nik |
So the best argument people have for SOPA is that piracy is bad and IP owners have a right to protect their property? I'm not disagreeing with that. But SOPA won't stop piracy, especially the serious stuff. Criminals will be criminals (hey guns kill people, let's ban guns that will solve the problem!) There is existing laws in place to protect IP, while giving the accused due process to take down offending material or challenge the charges. SOPA is a shoot first ask questions later approach where the accused are guilty until proven innocent. In our highly litigious society how many hosts of public discussion will cease to operate because they're now liable? It will stifle the internet. How many people will be afraid to share creative new ideas, because they build on old ones or bear passing similarity? And really how many sites will be falsely punished? There are already examples of abuse by IP holders under DMCA, why will SOPA be any different? According to Google half of the take down notices it receives under DMCA are from competing companies and most are not valid copyright claims. http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/feature/93FED CEF6636CF90CC25757A0072B4B7 I'm not against SOPA because it stops piracy. I'm against SOPA because it's a poorly written law. (Message edited by nik on January 18, 2012) | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Most people will be like... WTF... and then get on with their lives. But seriously, they just need to compromise the law and work on it some more. But still should make the laws stronger, and teach people that what they thought was OK... is actually against the law. That means YOU. (yall know who you are) condem anyone you know who pirates gives copies away etc etc. | ||
| Nik |
and teach people that what they thought was OK... is actually against the law. That doesn't work. You have to teach them that it's WRONG. You can't legislate behavior, you have to win over people's hearts and minds. SOPA doesn't do this. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Oh sorry, I meant to say it was against the law AND wrong. In our highly litigious society how many hosts of public discussion will cease to operate because they're now liable? Does it really matter? there are already a cazillion blogs that no one reads. It will stifle the internet. It may stifle some internet users' experience but not all. How many people will be afraid to share creative new ideas, because they build on old ones or bear passing similarity? None. Because they are creative, they will adapt. | ||
| Nik |
None. Because they are creative, they will adapt. How can they adapt when their stuff can be taken down without due process? And there's no repercussions for false accusations. It's like banning computers because they facilitate pirating (hey they tried with VCRs and tape decks....) People will just adapt right? It may stifle some internet users' experience but not all. And some internet users are perfectly happy with AOL from back in the day, doesn't mean we should go back to that. I'm sure some internet users in China, North Korea (hell South Korea too,) Iran, etc are perfectly happy with their experience too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd ed&v=tzqMoOk9NWc} There are laws in place to enforce copyright. (Message edited by nik on January 18, 2012) | ||
| Phelan |
It will kill more than you think. Places like eBay, Craigslist, and even the classifieds section in this forum will be affected as well. | ||
| Nik |
Say I have a business making fuzzy dog helmet covers, and I sell them exclusively on my website. One is a white beagle with black ears and one is a brown and black great dane. Hanna-Barbera and Iconix decide these two items infringe on their copyright of Snoopy and Scooby Doo. My site is immediately pulled from DNS servers, and search engines, items are dropped from Ebay, paypal freezes my accounts. My business is shut down and I loose hundreds of thousands (hey everyone loves the fuzzy dog helmet, with those silly ears flapping in the wind...), lose my home, end up on the streets with my sizeable family with only yards of faux fur to keep them warm. When it gets through the courts and its determined that the resemblance was purely coincidental, Iconix and Hanna Barbara say oops sorry (how generous of them since they don't have to actually apologize), and I'm left totally screwed. Very sarcastic? Yes. But that's still how SOPA works. Shoot first ask questions later. Guilty until proven innocent. (Message edited by nik on January 18, 2012) | ||
| Nik |
The only way to get creative with SOPA is to move everything outside of the US. DNS servers, search engine servers, content hosts, etc. That's how creative people will adapt. American business's will suffer but people will adapt. | ||
| Phelan |
exactly. It won't even effect servers outside the U.S. they will simply start sharing their IP address so that the only people that are screwed are the people that have to live with Big Brother corporations telling them to bend over. | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>But that doesn't give anybody the right to steal from them.<< I create web content and I play by the rules and buy the licences for all I publish. Music on my videos eg. But this goes too far. Just for example: By linking up the copyright infringing You Tube videos we have in the 'what are you listening to thread' we have already conspired to defraud the copyright holder and probably had Badweb blacklisted. Bad way to adapt. @ Nik - The advent of Cloud computing also means that it's not just a US issue - it's truly global. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Smoking may cause cancer The Surgeon General warns that smoking is bad for your health Smoking will make your lungs black yadda yadda yadda You cant legislate personal responsibility The Tobacco Industry is still running strong despite having their ads removed from TV where they are smoking, or smoking is off of TV sets, or no longer allowed to be cartoony Its a bad bill, and it will not stop the Chinese one whit. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Right, and it probably won't pass in it's current form either. The "What are you listening to" thread can continue, you would just post a link to the non-copyright infringing site, maybe a place that plays a snippet of the music OR just type the name of the band. | ||
| Reepicheep |
It doesn't matter if we link to infringing or non infringing material. All somebody has to do is *claim* we are linking to infringing material, and we are shut down until we prove we are innocent. Most people arguing here respect copyright and are against piracy, which are already illegal, and which already provide some pretty draconian channels of recourse for the copyright holders. The problem here is this law. | ||
| Court |
Wonder how those British Bakers feel now . . . . . . | ||
| Nik |
If this goes through I wonder how long it will be before some entrepreneurs set up a cloud in the caymans, with a subscription to ssh tunnel in. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
All somebody has to do is *claim* we are linking to infringing material, and we are shut down until we prove we are innocent. Have you seen the documentation that you need to fill out for that to happen? (I haven't) You make it seem like all you have to do is leave a voice mail somewhere and the site will be closed. | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
 "We've taken care of everything The words you hear, the songs you sing The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes It's one for all and all for one We work together, common sons Never need to wonder how or why We are the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx Our great computers fill the hallowed halls We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx All the gifts of life are held within our walls Look around at this world we've made Equality our stock in trade Come and join the Brotherhood of Man Oh, what a nice, contented world Let the banners be unfurled Hold the Red Star proudly high in hand" | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I guess this would not be a good method? http://www.amazon.com/2112-Rush/dp/B000001ESF/ref= sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1301255437&sr=1-1 http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/2112-remastered/i d129706 | ||
| Reepicheep |
Paperwork or process won't be an obstacle for groups with large legal teams already on retainer. It will be an obstacle for sites (like this one) without the means or desire to pay for big legal teams. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Sites like this one will just adapt to the new protocol wouldn't they? (no posting images or video's) From the video explanation, each alleged violator would be notified of the violation, then the accused could search and destroy the violating content. How much time they would have I don't know, but it seems there would be notification and a certain time where a judge would look at the evidence and agree or disagree with the violation and then shut it down if the complaint is valid. Three is a process for it, it is not an actual slam dunk process. It hasn't passed yet and if it's just a matter of changing the wording in the bill, I am sure it will be modified before they pass it. Of course not everyone will like it. | ||
| Reepicheep |
"The Internet views censorship as damage, and routes around it". What it will result in is a massive migration out of US hosting centers, and a massive competitive disadvantage to US owned sites. (Message edited by reepicheep on January 19, 2012) | ||
| Reepicheep |
I'm sure you are right. Please sign this contract with me. Once you sign it, I promise I'll make it better. Really. So just sign here...  (BTW, you know your position is in trouble when there is a pre-built emoticon illustrating exactly the problem you are trying to avoid...) | ||
| Hootowl |
Good news. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/18/score-on e-for-america-people-and-internet-freedom/ Seems our representatives (most of them) are not deaf after all. | ||
| Nik |
From the video explanation, each alleged violator would be notified of the violation, then the accused could search and destroy the violating content. How much time they would have I don't know, but it seems there would be notification and a certain time where a judge would look at the evidence and agree or disagree with the violation and then shut it down if the complaint is valid. Three is a process for it, it is not an actual slam dunk process. That's how things currently are under DMCA. So why do we need another law again? Under SOPA and PIPA there is no due process before a site is shut down. There is a presumption of guilt. Shut down first, legal proceedings later, with no repercussions for false claims. (Message edited by Nik on January 19, 2012) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
What it means overall is that small sites like this one will cease to exist and ALL bulletinboards of this type will be run by large sponsoring corporations. In essence, BadWeb, prior to the closing of BMC would have been owned and run by Harley Davidson. Somehow I don't think this is what anyone wants. I believe if it does pass, it will be challenged as unconstitutional due to the fact that it stifles free speech. Although it does enhance copyright protections, it destroys the medium for free speech in the process. They are fixing the potholes by taking out the road. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
It probably won't be passed. Under SOPA and PIPA there is no due process before a site is shut down. There is a presumption of guilt. Shut down first, legal proceedings later, with no repercussions for false claims. Where does it actually say that you can't have repercussions for false claims? (even if it's after the fact) Where does it say, there is absolutely no due process? Of course there is/will be. Right, it doesn't...it's just that it is "possible" ... (to be fixed at a leter time) Nothing has happened yet .... they still have to pass it first...to see what's in it!! (oops!!)  Maybe... the Mayan calender was referring to the internet as-we-know-it. Changing laws happens all the time for whatever reason. Sorry. |
