100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Just wondering......about | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Does anyone have any thoughts on the following issues:
PATRIOT ACT, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, NDAA, H.R. 347..... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOPE.......
 SORRY!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they all have positive and negative attributes
but mostly positive, so far, IMHO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S.O.P.A.: The wet dream of all american holders of intellectual property rights - except that it would have killed the internet as we know it. I work in that branch, and I can see what the supporters wanted, but it just wouldn't work - or work too good. ONE possible outcoome would have been an isolation of America...
Actually, it's an attempt of IP holders (and willing do-gooders, know-littles in the political institutions) to deal with new media by means of old media... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S.O.P.A.: The wet dream of all american holders of intellectual property rights - except that it would have killed the internet as we know it. I work in that branch, and I can see what the supporters wanted, but it just wouldn't work - or work too good. ONE possible outcoome would have been an isolation of America... Actually, it's an attempt of IP holders (and willing do-gooders, know-littles in the political institutions) to deal with new media by means of old media... Declining sales and loss of propaganda monopoly has the establishment media in a panic. The last thing the elite want is for the sheeple to continue to have easy access to alternative sources of information.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Declining sales and loss of propaganda monopoly has the establishment media in a panic. The last thing the elite want is for the sheeple to continue to have easy access to alternative sources of information.. And that is just a side effect they try to keep away from us... but instead of making use of the internet as a decent way to market your product (the music, the movie) at almost no marketing price (no burning, no packaging, no transport, no storage), they try to make us pay almost the same for a legal download product as we do for a physical... and after doing so, they rant about "Online Piracy". Stealing music IS a theft, but making the customer pay all the costs you don't even have is fraud... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Declining sales and loss of propaganda monopoly has the establishment media in a panic. The last thing the elite want is for the sheeple to continue to have easy access to alternative sources of information.. And that is just a side effect they try to keep away from us... but instead of making use of the internet as a decent way to market your product (the music, the movie) at almost no marketing price (no burning, no packaging, no transport, no storage), they try to make us pay almost the same for a legal download product as we do for a physical... and after doing so, they rant about "Online Piracy". Stealing music IS a theft, but making the customer pay all the costs you don't even have is fraud... I agree.. You have the same companies owning entertainment conglomerates and media conglomerates. The mergers and acquisitions of entertainment and media companies has really complicated the fair use laws and has allowed these mega corporations to lobby for restrictions claiming intellectual property rights when it is clear they have ulterior motives. They want their foot in the door today to protect their entertainment assets, but tomorrow it will be something to protect their media/information monopolies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More power than a government should have to ignore fundamental rights, and ignore the constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Declining sales and loss of propaganda monopoly has the establishment media in a panic. The last thing the elite want is for the sheeple to continue to have easy access to alternative sources of information.. And that is just a side effect they try to keep away from us... but instead of making use of the internet as a decent way to market your product (the music, the movie) at almost no marketing price (no burning, no packaging, no transport, no storage), they try to make us pay almost the same for a legal download product as we do for a physical... and after doing so, they rant about "Online Piracy". Stealing music IS a theft, but making the customer pay all the costs you don't even have is fraud... last I checked, online downloads run as low as ninety nine cents, and purchase of cds on amazon cost half or less of what a physical cd at a store does,,so Im not sure about this statement at all if someone else produces it, noone should have the right to just 'Take' it,,, even college doesnt allow us to do that, why should media? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Declining sales and loss of propaganda monopoly has the establishment media in a panic. The last thing the elite want is for the sheeple to continue to have easy access to alternative sources of information.. And that is just a side effect they try to keep away from us... but instead of making use of the internet as a decent way to market your product (the music, the movie) at almost no marketing price (no burning, no packaging, no transport, no storage), they try to make us pay almost the same for a legal download product as we do for a physical... and after doing so, they rant about "Online Piracy". Stealing music IS a theft, but making the customer pay all the costs you don't even have is fraud... last I checked, online downloads run as low as ninety nine cents, and purchase of cds on amazon cost half or less of what a physical cd at a store does,,so Im not sure about this statement at all if someone else produces it, noone should have the right to just 'Take' it,,, even college doesnt allow us to do that, why should media? I am sure that you recall the days of radios with tape players that allowed you to copy songs being played over the air. If you had a dual tape deck you could buy a tape and copy it as many times as you wanted.. Again.. I don't recall anyone being sued to stop producing radios with dual tape decks.. I go and buy a car.. Can I be sued if I let someone borrow it because the rights of the technology always belong to the manufacturer? I think not.. This is a power grab by the entertainment and media conglomerates pure and simple. They want a monopoly on distribution of information. Period. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Declining sales and loss of propaganda monopoly has the establishment media in a panic. The last thing the elite want is for the sheeple to continue to have easy access to alternative sources of information.. And that is just a side effect they try to keep away from us... but instead of making use of the internet as a decent way to market your product (the music, the movie) at almost no marketing price (no burning, no packaging, no transport, no storage), they try to make us pay almost the same for a legal download product as we do for a physical... and after doing so, they rant about "Online Piracy". Stealing music IS a theft, but making the customer pay all the costs you don't even have is fraud... last I checked, online downloads run as low as ninety nine cents, and purchase of cds on amazon cost half or less of what a physical cd at a store does,,so Im not sure about this statement at all if someone else produces it, noone should have the right to just 'Take' it,,, even college doesnt allow us to do that, why should media? I am sure that you recall the days of radios with tape players that allowed you to copy songs being played over the air. If you had a dual tape deck you could buy a tape and copy it as many times as you wanted.. Again.. I don't recall anyone being sued to stop producing radios with dual tape decks.. I go and buy a car.. Can I be sued if I let someone borrow it because the rights of the technology always belong to the manufacturer? I think not.. This is a power grab by the entertainment and media conglomerates pure and simple. They want a monopoly on distribution of information. Period. the problem with that analoty is, even in copying a tape, you need a physical medium to do so (other tapes)) and I doubt anyone would have the resources to buy hundreds and thousands of 'tapes' just to give away music to complete strangers cyber media allows one to truly pay for a thing once and then pass it out at no cost to themself or anyone else hundreds,thousands, and even millions of times,,, if you let someone use your car, that is again ONE driver per car, the driver may switch but the use was paid for once because it is ONE car being driven(whomever the driver is) duplicating a car by chrysler and passing it out randomly to hundreds and thousands of users,, would cause an issue with Chrysler for sure,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 03/14/12 08:09 AM
|
|
Declining sales and loss of propaganda monopoly has the establishment media in a panic. The last thing the elite want is for the sheeple to continue to have easy access to alternative sources of information.. And that is just a side effect they try to keep away from us... but instead of making use of the internet as a decent way to market your product (the music, the movie) at almost no marketing price (no burning, no packaging, no transport, no storage), they try to make us pay almost the same for a legal download product as we do for a physical... and after doing so, they rant about "Online Piracy". Stealing music IS a theft, but making the customer pay all the costs you don't even have is fraud... last I checked, online downloads run as low as ninety nine cents, and purchase of cds on amazon cost half or less of what a physical cd at a store does,,so Im not sure about this statement at all if someone else produces it, noone should have the right to just 'Take' it,,, even college doesnt allow us to do that, why should media? I am sure that you recall the days of radios with tape players that allowed you to copy songs being played over the air. If you had a dual tape deck you could buy a tape and copy it as many times as you wanted.. Again.. I don't recall anyone being sued to stop producing radios with dual tape decks.. I go and buy a car.. Can I be sued if I let someone borrow it because the rights of the technology always belong to the manufacturer? I think not.. This is a power grab by the entertainment and media conglomerates pure and simple. They want a monopoly on distribution of information. Period. the problem with that analoty is, even in copying a tape, you need a physical medium to do so (other tapes)) and I doubt anyone would have the resources to buy hundreds and thousands of 'tapes' just to give away music to complete strangers cyber media allows one to truly pay for a thing once and then pass it out at no cost to themself or anyone else hundreds,thousands, and even millions of times,,, if you let someone use your car, that is again ONE driver per car, the driver may switch but the use was paid for once because it is ONE car being driven(whomever the driver is) duplicating a car by chrysler and passing it out randomly to hundreds and thousands of users,, would cause an issue with Chrysler for sure,,, SOPA was designed to allow complete censorship of all POSSIBLE IP rights violations prior to a court ruling on the ACTUAL violation. The ramifications of such heavy handed preemptive censorship is more than chilling of the first amendment, and ignores all of the granularity of IP rights, fair use ect ect. So your argument is moot, tangential, and unrelated to the actual problems with SOPA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Declining sales and loss of propaganda monopoly has the establishment media in a panic. The last thing the elite want is for the sheeple to continue to have easy access to alternative sources of information.. And that is just a side effect they try to keep away from us... but instead of making use of the internet as a decent way to market your product (the music, the movie) at almost no marketing price (no burning, no packaging, no transport, no storage), they try to make us pay almost the same for a legal download product as we do for a physical... and after doing so, they rant about "Online Piracy". Stealing music IS a theft, but making the customer pay all the costs you don't even have is fraud... last I checked, online downloads run as low as ninety nine cents, and purchase of cds on amazon cost half or less of what a physical cd at a store does,,so Im not sure about this statement at all if someone else produces it, noone should have the right to just 'Take' it,,, even college doesnt allow us to do that, why should media? I am sure that you recall the days of radios with tape players that allowed you to copy songs being played over the air. If you had a dual tape deck you could buy a tape and copy it as many times as you wanted.. Again.. I don't recall anyone being sued to stop producing radios with dual tape decks.. I go and buy a car.. Can I be sued if I let someone borrow it because the rights of the technology always belong to the manufacturer? I think not.. This is a power grab by the entertainment and media conglomerates pure and simple. They want a monopoly on distribution of information. Period. the problem with that analoty is, even in copying a tape, you need a physical medium to do so (other tapes)) and I doubt anyone would have the resources to buy hundreds and thousands of 'tapes' just to give away music to complete strangers cyber media allows one to truly pay for a thing once and then pass it out at no cost to themself or anyone else hundreds,thousands, and even millions of times,,, if you let someone use your car, that is again ONE driver per car, the driver may switch but the use was paid for once because it is ONE car being driven(whomever the driver is) duplicating a car by chrysler and passing it out randomly to hundreds and thousands of users,, would cause an issue with Chrysler for sure,,, The analogy I used is perfect. I can buy a car and I can loan the car and I can sell the car without being considered a pirate. I can buy a DVD and if I loan it or sell it I am considered a pirate. That is their interpretation of copyright infringement.. Their entire argument is based on the idea that someone offering something to someone else takes away earning potential.Instead of a free copy they would have to go out and buy it.. I can give my car to a charity am I a pirate since my giving it for free takes away the possibility that the charity would otherwise have to go out and purchase the car from the manufacturer? Your argument of its only one person or one car doesn't fit because they can sue for downloading 1 song or movie without paying for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..to me i can't see how recording music to disc is any different that if i were to turn on the radio and tape the music to cassette..in fact other than the new modes by which we have to record the songs there really isn't any difference..jmo..  ..in my opinion if its for ones own personal use and not mass produced for sale then i think its ridiculous..i can hardly think of one friend when cassettes came out that didn't record music to play in their cars.. damn pirates we were ..i guess when VCRs came out we were all pirates,and for that fact if we are to record any show we could be called pirates ,and if that being the case anyone who produces recording devices not to mention the manufacturers who enable us to record...the insanity of it all.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
last I checked, online downloads run as low as ninety nine cents, and purchase of cds on amazon cost half or less of what a physical cd at a store does,,so Im not sure about this statement at all if someone else produces it, noone should have the right to just 'Take' it,,, even college doesnt allow us to do that, why should media? I absolutely agree with you on the point that nobody should just "take" the work of others... that's why I said "Stealing music IS a theft". The problem used to be (until VERY shortly ago), that as often as not you couldn't even legally buy some music... not even if you wished and were willing to pay for it! So people became accustomed to things like the old Napster, or Peer-to-peer networks for downloading their music... I would be willing to pay half of what a physical album would cost me for a download - here in Germany, you still pay like 13-15€ for a top-ten-album, and maybe 1-2€ less for the download... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Declining sales and loss of propaganda monopoly has the establishment media in a panic. The last thing the elite want is for the sheeple to continue to have easy access to alternative sources of information.. And that is just a side effect they try to keep away from us... but instead of making use of the internet as a decent way to market your product (the music, the movie) at almost no marketing price (no burning, no packaging, no transport, no storage), they try to make us pay almost the same for a legal download product as we do for a physical... and after doing so, they rant about "Online Piracy". Stealing music IS a theft, but making the customer pay all the costs you don't even have is fraud... last I checked, online downloads run as low as ninety nine cents, and purchase of cds on amazon cost half or less of what a physical cd at a store does,,so Im not sure about this statement at all if someone else produces it, noone should have the right to just 'Take' it,,, even college doesnt allow us to do that, why should media? I am sure that you recall the days of radios with tape players that allowed you to copy songs being played over the air. If you had a dual tape deck you could buy a tape and copy it as many times as you wanted.. Again.. I don't recall anyone being sued to stop producing radios with dual tape decks.. I go and buy a car.. Can I be sued if I let someone borrow it because the rights of the technology always belong to the manufacturer? I think not.. This is a power grab by the entertainment and media conglomerates pure and simple. They want a monopoly on distribution of information. Period. the problem with that analoty is, even in copying a tape, you need a physical medium to do so (other tapes)) and I doubt anyone would have the resources to buy hundreds and thousands of 'tapes' just to give away music to complete strangers cyber media allows one to truly pay for a thing once and then pass it out at no cost to themself or anyone else hundreds,thousands, and even millions of times,,, if you let someone use your car, that is again ONE driver per car, the driver may switch but the use was paid for once because it is ONE car being driven(whomever the driver is) duplicating a car by chrysler and passing it out randomly to hundreds and thousands of users,, would cause an issue with Chrysler for sure,,, SOPA was designed to allow complete censorship of all POSSIBLE IP rights violations prior to a court ruling on the ACTUAL violation. The ramifications of such heavy handed preemptive censorship is more than chilling of the first amendment, and ignores all of the granularity of IP rights, fair use ect ect. So your argument is moot, tangential, and unrelated to the actual problems with SOPA. or not 5) RELIEF- On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action under this section, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against a registrant of a domain name used by the foreign infringing site or an owner or operator of the foreign infringing site or, in an action brought in rem under paragraph (2), against the foreign infringing site or a portion of such site, or the domain name used by such site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as a foreign infringing site. (2) RELIEF- Relief under this subsection shall be proper if the court finds that-- (A) the foreign Internet site subject to the order is no longer, or never was, a foreign infringing site; or (B) the interests of justice otherwise require that the order be modified, suspended, or vacated. these all mention 'courts',,,kind of like a legal ramification for those who might object to the order,,,,not at all a TOTAL Takeover of anything,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Declining sales and loss of propaganda monopoly has the establishment media in a panic. The last thing the elite want is for the sheeple to continue to have easy access to alternative sources of information.. And that is just a side effect they try to keep away from us... but instead of making use of the internet as a decent way to market your product (the music, the movie) at almost no marketing price (no burning, no packaging, no transport, no storage), they try to make us pay almost the same for a legal download product as we do for a physical... and after doing so, they rant about "Online Piracy". Stealing music IS a theft, but making the customer pay all the costs you don't even have is fraud... last I checked, online downloads run as low as ninety nine cents, and purchase of cds on amazon cost half or less of what a physical cd at a store does,,so Im not sure about this statement at all if someone else produces it, noone should have the right to just 'Take' it,,, even college doesnt allow us to do that, why should media? I am sure that you recall the days of radios with tape players that allowed you to copy songs being played over the air. If you had a dual tape deck you could buy a tape and copy it as many times as you wanted.. Again.. I don't recall anyone being sued to stop producing radios with dual tape decks.. I go and buy a car.. Can I be sued if I let someone borrow it because the rights of the technology always belong to the manufacturer? I think not.. This is a power grab by the entertainment and media conglomerates pure and simple. They want a monopoly on distribution of information. Period. the problem with that analoty is, even in copying a tape, you need a physical medium to do so (other tapes)) and I doubt anyone would have the resources to buy hundreds and thousands of 'tapes' just to give away music to complete strangers cyber media allows one to truly pay for a thing once and then pass it out at no cost to themself or anyone else hundreds,thousands, and even millions of times,,, if you let someone use your car, that is again ONE driver per car, the driver may switch but the use was paid for once because it is ONE car being driven(whomever the driver is) duplicating a car by chrysler and passing it out randomly to hundreds and thousands of users,, would cause an issue with Chrysler for sure,,, The analogy I used is perfect. I can buy a car and I can loan the car and I can sell the car without being considered a pirate. I can buy a DVD and if I loan it or sell it I am considered a pirate. That is their interpretation of copyright infringement.. Their entire argument is based on the idea that someone offering something to someone else takes away earning potential.Instead of a free copy they would have to go out and buy it.. I can give my car to a charity am I a pirate since my giving it for free takes away the possibility that the charity would otherwise have to go out and purchase the car from the manufacturer? Your argument of its only one person or one car doesn't fit because they can sue for downloading 1 song or movie without paying for it. no,, loaning and even selling (trading of ownership) of a product is not the same as REPRODUCTION of a product you can buy a car and RESELL it (transfer the ownership) you can buy a cd and sell it (transfer the ownership) you can even buy a movie and sell it (transfer the ownership) in all those cases, you bought the product and then you use that ONE product that you own the way you wish to use it, or let someone else use it if you REPRODUCE the product though, you are now using the product you own and allowing others to have a product they DONT own and have no permission to have,,,,while you continue to own and use the copy you paid for,,,, ,,,thats the difference |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..to me i can't see how recording music to disc is any different that if i were to turn on the radio and tape the music to cassette..in fact other than the new modes by which we have to record the songs there really isn't any difference..jmo.. ..in my opinion if its for ones own personal use and not mass produced for sale then i think its ridiculous..i can hardly think of one friend when cassettes came out that didn't record music to play in their cars.. damn pirates we were ..i guess when VCRs came out we were all pirates,and for that fact if we are to record any show we could be called pirates ,and if that being the case anyone who produces recording devices not to mention the manufacturers who enable us to record...the insanity of it all.. I think piracy is not about simple sharing with 'friends' that happened in casette days most people dont honestly have hundreds and THOUSANDS of friends that can access their purchases to 'share' them with them this makes the internet issue much more complex than mere 'why cant I buy it and share it like I always have' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
these all mention 'courts',,,kind of like a legal ramification for those who might object to the order,,,,not at all a TOTAL Takeover of anything,,, Meaning you can shut down sites just by claiming that you are the owner of any IP on the site in question... Like you have someone place a picture you hold the rights to in wikipedia... proving you have the rights to the pic... the court will issue an order to have this picture restrained. PLUS sending the bill for your lawyer plus court fees to the wikipedia foundation. Just how many pictures would you presume it would take to make the wikipedia foundation stone broke, apart from the cost of the personnell to follow the court orders? Now replace wikipedia with a site like wikileaks, and you have a great way to suppress all unwanted information on the internet... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
InvictusV
on
Wed 03/14/12 03:46 PM
|
|
Declining sales and loss of propaganda monopoly has the establishment media in a panic. The last thing the elite want is for the sheeple to continue to have easy access to alternative sources of information.. And that is just a side effect they try to keep away from us... but instead of making use of the internet as a decent way to market your product (the music, the movie) at almost no marketing price (no burning, no packaging, no transport, no storage), they try to make us pay almost the same for a legal download product as we do for a physical... and after doing so, they rant about "Online Piracy". Stealing music IS a theft, but making the customer pay all the costs you don't even have is fraud... last I checked, online downloads run as low as ninety nine cents, and purchase of cds on amazon cost half or less of what a physical cd at a store does,,so Im not sure about this statement at all if someone else produces it, noone should have the right to just 'Take' it,,, even college doesnt allow us to do that, why should media? I am sure that you recall the days of radios with tape players that allowed you to copy songs being played over the air. If you had a dual tape deck you could buy a tape and copy it as many times as you wanted.. Again.. I don't recall anyone being sued to stop producing radios with dual tape decks.. I go and buy a car.. Can I be sued if I let someone borrow it because the rights of the technology always belong to the manufacturer? I think not.. This is a power grab by the entertainment and media conglomerates pure and simple. They want a monopoly on distribution of information. Period. the problem with that analoty is, even in copying a tape, you need a physical medium to do so (other tapes)) and I doubt anyone would have the resources to buy hundreds and thousands of 'tapes' just to give away music to complete strangers cyber media allows one to truly pay for a thing once and then pass it out at no cost to themself or anyone else hundreds,thousands, and even millions of times,,, if you let someone use your car, that is again ONE driver per car, the driver may switch but the use was paid for once because it is ONE car being driven(whomever the driver is) duplicating a car by chrysler and passing it out randomly to hundreds and thousands of users,, would cause an issue with Chrysler for sure,,, The analogy I used is perfect. I can buy a car and I can loan the car and I can sell the car without being considered a pirate. I can buy a DVD and if I loan it or sell it I am considered a pirate. That is their interpretation of copyright infringement.. Their entire argument is based on the idea that someone offering something to someone else takes away earning potential.Instead of a free copy they would have to go out and buy it.. I can give my car to a charity am I a pirate since my giving it for free takes away the possibility that the charity would otherwise have to go out and purchase the car from the manufacturer? Your argument of its only one person or one car doesn't fit because they can sue for downloading 1 song or movie without paying for it. no,, loaning and even selling (trading of ownership) of a product is not the same as REPRODUCTION of a product you can buy a car and RESELL it (transfer the ownership) you can buy a cd and sell it (transfer the ownership) you can even buy a movie and sell it (transfer the ownership) in all those cases, you bought the product and then you use that ONE product that you own the way you wish to use it, or let someone else use it if you REPRODUCE the product though, you are now using the product you own and allowing others to have a product they DONT own and have no permission to have,,,,while you continue to own and use the copy you paid for,,,, ,,,thats the difference Here is why you are wrong.. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUPAP KIRTSAENG, doing business as BLUECHRISTINE99, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 34 August Term, 2010 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Donald C. Pogue, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation), following a jury trial, awarding statutory damages to plaintiff publisher for copyright infringement. Defendant claims on appeal that the District Court denied him a defense under the “first sale doctrine,” 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), and erred in evidentiary rulings which, he alleges, led to the award of unduly high damages. In a case of first impression in our Court, we hold (1) that the first sale doctrine,which allows a person who buys a legally produced copyrighted work to sell or otherwise dispose of the work as he sees fit, does not apply to works manufactured outside of the United States, and (2) that the District Court did not err in its evidentiary rulings. Affirmed. https://www.eff.org/files/Wiley-v-Kirtsaeng_2ndCir_8-15-11.pdf/ Based on this ruling.. Anything made outside the United States CANNOT be resold by using the first sale doctrine.. Therefore, since my car was made outside of the United States I could be sued for illegally selling the car. |
|
|
|
|
