100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Just wondering......about | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 03/14/12 04:01 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. a car is not a 'copyrighted' product, so thats an irrelevant comparison people sale their NOT MADE IN AMERICA cars all the time, Im sure you wont find a case of anyone being sued for it,, we also have SOME countries which we have copyright agreements with and others we dont, which would make the issue of an INTERNATIONAL type situation become something that was case by case and country by country |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SanneHan
on
Wed 03/14/12 09:43 PM
|
|
Oh, cars and technics used in them are not copyrighted? I bet the people at General Motors, Mitsubishi, BMW and Volkswagen would hate to hear that... let alone the people at Apple and HTC, when it comes to cell phones. I should go and find another field to make money in ASAP.
Intellectual property doesn't end with music, movies and books, you know... that's just the part Jane Doe notices most. And the reports on that topic may be exaggerated, but I know at least one company in the U.S. that cares about IP matters abroad enough to hire a pretty expensive lawyer from Germany (me *curtsy*) to take care of such matters in Europe, let alone in areas like Asia - here in Europe, we just LOVE chinese fotographers on any kind of trade fair, knowing we will soon see the works of our R&D departments coming back to us from there... R&D is essential for many branches, and taking a picture is WAY cheaper than developing the stuff yourself, you know!? I won't even go far enough to point out the Echelon installations all over the world... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, cars and technics used in them are not copyrighted? I bet the people at General Motors, Mitsubishi, BMW and Volkswagen would hate to hear that... let alone the people at Apple and HTC, when it comes to cell phones. I should go and find another field to make money in ASAP. Intellectual property doesn't end with music, movies and books, you know... that's just the part Jane Doe notices most. And the reports on that topic may be exaggerated, but I know at least one company in the U.S. that cares about IP matters abroad enough to hire a pretty expensive lawyer from Germany (me *curtsy*) to take care of such matters in Europe, let alone in areas like Asia - here in Europe, we just LOVE chinese fotographers on any kind of trade fair, knowing we will soon see the works of our R&D departments coming back to us from there... R&D is essential for many branches, and taking a picture is WAY cheaper than developing the stuff yourself, you know!? I won't even go far enough to point out the Echelon installations all over the world... car parts (or at least their blueprints) are probably 'patented',,,, not 'copyrighted' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The same thing in the end - getting a patent only makes the copyright easier to handle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. a car is not a 'copyrighted' product, so thats an irrelevant comparison people sale their NOT MADE IN AMERICA cars all the time, Im sure you wont find a case of anyone being sued for it,, we also have SOME countries which we have copyright agreements with and others we dont, which would make the issue of an INTERNATIONAL type situation become something that was case by case and country by country Each car manufacturer has copyrighted software that controls the electrical and electronic components of every car they build. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 don't know what you been lookin at but legally downloading music is $.99 per song so in some cases its more expensive than buying a hard copy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its funny to me you guys are arguing copyright when SOPA was not really about copyright laws, it is about the power to censor based on the POSSIBILITY of a copy right violation.
No changes to copy right law itself was posed, only the power of IP holders to request sites be taken down that had POSSIBLE copyright violations, and the ability to take action against any sites which hosted links or material which could possibly have such violations. This preemptive enforcement policy would make it very risky to host ANY links to ANY material which could be used under fair use. Which would have "a chilling effect" on user generated content, fair use criticisms, and just about all of the various LEGAL ways to make use of copy righted materials. THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. a car is not a 'copyrighted' product, so thats an irrelevant comparison people sale their NOT MADE IN AMERICA cars all the time, Im sure you wont find a case of anyone being sued for it,, we also have SOME countries which we have copyright agreements with and others we dont, which would make the issue of an INTERNATIONAL type situation become something that was case by case and country by country Each car manufacturer has copyrighted software that controls the electrical and electronic components of every car they build. and IM sure that software is protected by copyright laws,, the physical components however, would be protected by patents... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its funny to me you guys are arguing copyright when SOPA was not really about copyright laws, it is about the power to censor based on the POSSIBILITY of a copy right violation. No changes to copy right law itself was posed, only the power of IP holders to request sites be taken down that had POSSIBLE copyright violations, and the ability to take action against any sites which hosted links or material which could possibly have such violations. This preemptive enforcement policy would make it very risky to host ANY links to ANY material which could be used under fair use. Which would have "a chilling effect" on user generated content, fair use criticisms, and just about all of the various LEGAL ways to make use of copy righted materials. THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE. I didnt see 'possible' anywhere in the SOPA text,,, have you read the bill? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 03/15/12 09:49 AM
|
|
Its funny to me you guys are arguing copyright when SOPA was not really about copyright laws, it is about the power to censor based on the POSSIBILITY of a copy right violation. No changes to copy right law itself was posed, only the power of IP holders to request sites be taken down that had POSSIBLE copyright violations, and the ability to take action against any sites which hosted links or material which could possibly have such violations. This preemptive enforcement policy would make it very risky to host ANY links to ANY material which could be used under fair use. Which would have "a chilling effect" on user generated content, fair use criticisms, and just about all of the various LEGAL ways to make use of copy righted materials. THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE. I didnt see 'possible' anywhere in the SOPA text,,, have you read the bill? ie it requires to avoid POSSIBLE legal actions against your business to remove all such links/content OR monitor all such links/content. Which means for just about EVERY such site that to monitor would be cost prohibitive, which means that they would just remove that content. This is why POSSIBLE is exactly what gets censored, becuase these businesses would have to monitor the potential for copyrights violations at there own expense to avoid legal action being taken against them for a user, or even another sites upload. msharmony, if you have not read up on the ramifications of this, then I understand, but I know better. I know you have been told this before. When your threaten the bottom line of a company, by requiring them to police all links and all user generated content, and there entire business is user uploaded content, such as youtube. What you are really doing is putting them out of business. These are heavy handed, and place the burden of proof on the content site, not on the content owner, which is where the burden of proof for a IP copy rights currently reside. Currently if you own content, it is up to you to determine if its a rights violation when you find your content on a site, you can file a DMCA and have it ruled on and if its not under fair use protection you can have it taken down. When you place the burden on the content site, becuase they CANNOT afford to monitor the POSSIBLE rights violations they then will just get out of that business entirely which PREEMPTIVELY silences all of the uses, both fair use, and the actual violations all in one sweep. This is why SOPA was terrible legislation it shifted the burden from the content owner to the site which links content. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 03/15/12 12:34 PM
|
|
Its funny to me you guys are arguing copyright when SOPA was not really about copyright laws, it is about the power to censor based on the POSSIBILITY of a copy right violation. No changes to copy right law itself was posed, only the power of IP holders to request sites be taken down that had POSSIBLE copyright violations, and the ability to take action against any sites which hosted links or material which could possibly have such violations. This preemptive enforcement policy would make it very risky to host ANY links to ANY material which could be used under fair use. Which would have "a chilling effect" on user generated content, fair use criticisms, and just about all of the various LEGAL ways to make use of copy righted materials. THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE. I didnt see 'possible' anywhere in the SOPA text,,, have you read the bill? ie it requires to avoid POSSIBLE legal actions against your business to remove all such links/content OR monitor all such links/content. Which means for just about EVERY such site that to monitor would be cost prohibitive, which means that they would just remove that content. This is why POSSIBLE is exactly what gets censored, becuase these businesses would have to monitor the potential for copyrights violations at there own expense to avoid legal action being taken against them for a user, or even another sites upload. msharmony, if you have not read up on the ramifications of this, then I understand, but I know better. I know you have been told this before. When your threaten the bottom line of a company, by requiring them to police all links and all user generated content, and there entire business is user uploaded content, such as youtube. What you are really doing is putting them out of business. These are heavy handed, and place the burden of proof on the content site, not on the content owner, which is where the burden of proof for a IP copy rights currently reside. Currently if you own content, it is up to you to determine if its a rights violation when you find your content on a site, you can file a DMCA and have it ruled on and if its not under fair use protection you can have it taken down. When you place the burden on the content site, becuase they CANNOT afford to monitor the POSSIBLE rights violations they then will just get out of that business entirely which PREEMPTIVELY silences all of the uses, both fair use, and the actual violations all in one sweep. This is why SOPA was terrible legislation it shifted the burden from the content owner to the site which links content. Yes, I have been told many times about these 'ramifications' , about as often as I was told about 'death panels' in the healthcare bill I just keep asking for the text that backs up the claim, and have yet to be shown it as I understand it, part of the definitions (at the beginning of the bill) which explain 'foreign infringing cites' which the bill is aimed at explains for a cite to fit the criteria it has to have a 'PRIMARY' purpose of engaging in, enabling, or facilitating infringement that is different than requiring ALL cites to monitor ALL their content,,,,,that is a PREPONDERANCE of activity that facilitates crime,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 03/15/12 01:03 PM
|
|
Its funny to me you guys are arguing copyright when SOPA was not really about copyright laws, it is about the power to censor based on the POSSIBILITY of a copy right violation. No changes to copy right law itself was posed, only the power of IP holders to request sites be taken down that had POSSIBLE copyright violations, and the ability to take action against any sites which hosted links or material which could possibly have such violations. This preemptive enforcement policy would make it very risky to host ANY links to ANY material which could be used under fair use. Which would have "a chilling effect" on user generated content, fair use criticisms, and just about all of the various LEGAL ways to make use of copy righted materials. THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE. I didnt see 'possible' anywhere in the SOPA text,,, have you read the bill? ie it requires to avoid POSSIBLE legal actions against your business to remove all such links/content OR monitor all such links/content. Which means for just about EVERY such site that to monitor would be cost prohibitive, which means that they would just remove that content. This is why POSSIBLE is exactly what gets censored, becuase these businesses would have to monitor the potential for copyrights violations at there own expense to avoid legal action being taken against them for a user, or even another sites upload. msharmony, if you have not read up on the ramifications of this, then I understand, but I know better. I know you have been told this before. When your threaten the bottom line of a company, by requiring them to police all links and all user generated content, and there entire business is user uploaded content, such as youtube. What you are really doing is putting them out of business. These are heavy handed, and place the burden of proof on the content site, not on the content owner, which is where the burden of proof for a IP copy rights currently reside. Currently if you own content, it is up to you to determine if its a rights violation when you find your content on a site, you can file a DMCA and have it ruled on and if its not under fair use protection you can have it taken down. When you place the burden on the content site, becuase they CANNOT afford to monitor the POSSIBLE rights violations they then will just get out of that business entirely which PREEMPTIVELY silences all of the uses, both fair use, and the actual violations all in one sweep. This is why SOPA was terrible legislation it shifted the burden from the content owner to the site which links content. Yes, I have been told many times about these 'ramifications' , about as often as I was told about 'death panels' in the healthcare bill I just keep asking for the text that backs up the claim, and have yet to be shown it as I understand it, part of the definitions (at the beginning of the bill) which explain 'foreign infringing cites' which the bill is aimed at explains for a cite to fit the criteria it has to have a 'PRIMARY' purpose of engaging in, enabling, or facilitating infringement that is different than requiring ALL cites to monitor ALL their content,,,,,that is a PREPONDERANCE of activity that facilitates crime,,, There are already examples of laws having such unintended consequences. It amuses me that you think it has to be written specifically into the bill for the causal effect to create exactly the situations described. Moving the burden of proof that a violation has occurred from the content owner to the content host is the problem, and it naturally follows that when content hosts such as youtube can be sued they then need to either remove all possible examples, or monitor those examples. This follows NATURALLY from the shift in burden, which is explicitly stated in the dead bill and is exactly why the bill is dead. Major players in the industry that have NOTHING to do with online piracy were against the bill, and spent big money to oppose it for just this reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its funny to me you guys are arguing copyright when SOPA was not really about copyright laws, it is about the power to censor based on the POSSIBILITY of a copy right violation. No changes to copy right law itself was posed, only the power of IP holders to request sites be taken down that had POSSIBLE copyright violations, and the ability to take action against any sites which hosted links or material which could possibly have such violations. This preemptive enforcement policy would make it very risky to host ANY links to ANY material which could be used under fair use. Which would have "a chilling effect" on user generated content, fair use criticisms, and just about all of the various LEGAL ways to make use of copy righted materials. THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE. I didnt see 'possible' anywhere in the SOPA text,,, have you read the bill? ie it requires to avoid POSSIBLE legal actions against your business to remove all such links/content OR monitor all such links/content. Which means for just about EVERY such site that to monitor would be cost prohibitive, which means that they would just remove that content. This is why POSSIBLE is exactly what gets censored, becuase these businesses would have to monitor the potential for copyrights violations at there own expense to avoid legal action being taken against them for a user, or even another sites upload. msharmony, if you have not read up on the ramifications of this, then I understand, but I know better. I know you have been told this before. When your threaten the bottom line of a company, by requiring them to police all links and all user generated content, and there entire business is user uploaded content, such as youtube. What you are really doing is putting them out of business. These are heavy handed, and place the burden of proof on the content site, not on the content owner, which is where the burden of proof for a IP copy rights currently reside. Currently if you own content, it is up to you to determine if its a rights violation when you find your content on a site, you can file a DMCA and have it ruled on and if its not under fair use protection you can have it taken down. When you place the burden on the content site, becuase they CANNOT afford to monitor the POSSIBLE rights violations they then will just get out of that business entirely which PREEMPTIVELY silences all of the uses, both fair use, and the actual violations all in one sweep. This is why SOPA was terrible legislation it shifted the burden from the content owner to the site which links content. Yes, I have been told many times about these 'ramifications' , about as often as I was told about 'death panels' in the healthcare bill I just keep asking for the text that backs up the claim, and have yet to be shown it as I understand it, part of the definitions (at the beginning of the bill) which explain 'foreign infringing cites' which the bill is aimed at explains for a cite to fit the criteria it has to have a 'PRIMARY' purpose of engaging in, enabling, or facilitating infringement that is different than requiring ALL cites to monitor ALL their content,,,,,that is a PREPONDERANCE of activity that facilitates crime,,, There are already examples of laws having such unintended consequences. It amuses me that you think it has to be written specifically into the bill for the causal effect to create exactly the situations described. Moving the burden of proof from the content owner to the content host is the problem, and it naturally follows that when content hosts such as youtube can be sued they then need to either remove all possible examples, or monitor those examples. This follows NATURALLY from the shift in burden, which is explicitly stated in the dead bill and is exactly why the bill is dead. Ill agree to disagree. There is no law that doesnt have a potential negative 'causal' effect. There are alot of 'could bes' out there, but I dont choose to let them kill the effort to curb offenses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 03/15/12 01:15 PM
|
|
Ill agree to disagree. There is no law that doesnt have a potential negative 'causal' effect. There are alot of 'could bes' out there, but I dont choose to let them kill the effort to curb offenses. You love to make these obvious statements as if they counter the clear, concise arguments against your positions. I wonder at times why you post if you cannot explain your position from the actual facts without just agreeing to disagree, getting side tracked, or making obvious statements that do not support your conclusions. Placing the burden of rights violations on content hosts will stifle the industry, it will stifle free expression, and it will stifle fair usage of copy righted material, this all logically follows from the shift of the burden of enforcement, and the shift of penalizing content hosts, the common objections are exactly what you see here, an assortment of illogical, tangential, and wishful thinking. I am just happy that the tech sector is powerful enough these days to put legislatures, and wishful thinking content owners in there places. If you want to protect your IP rights you need to put forth the effort to find, and sue the perpetrators, shuffling off this burden to the content hosts is not a viable solution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 03/15/12 01:28 PM
|
|
What you really mean is that you choose to ignore real world examples and logical conclusions in favor of your own pet legislation
NO. IM REALLY NOT IGNORING THE EXAMPLES AT ALL. I JUST DONT GIVE THEM THE WEIGHT THAT YOU MIGHT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS ISSUE. You love to make these obvious statements as if they counter the clear, concise arguments against your positions. NOPE. I ENJOY POSTING MY OWN OPINIONS AND 'ARGUMENTS' JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE ON THE FORUM AND ITS ALL THE MORE INTERESTING IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE OPINION ON ANY FORUM THREAD,..SO YAY MSH!! I wonder at times why you post if you cannot explain your position from the actual facts without just agreeing to disagree, getting side tracked, or making obvious statements that do not support your conclusions. WOW. THATS A COMPLEX ONE. I HAVE MANY REASONS THAT I POST DEPENDING UPON THE THREAD, WHAT IM DOING AT THE TIME, AND HOW I FEEL. I POST BECAUSE I FIND THE DISCUSSION ENGAGING. I POST SOMETIMES BECAUSE MANY MORE PEOPLE READ THESE THREADS THAN POST IN THEM AND I SOMETIMES WANT TO COUNTER WHAT I FEEL IS FALSE OR MISLEADING INFORMATION AND GIVE MORE FOR THOSE READERS TO CONSIDER. WHEN I AGREE TO DISAGREE ITS BECAUSE NOONE IS BUDGING FROM THEIR OPINIONS OR THE INFORMATION THEY HAVE DUG UP TO SUPPORT THEM AND I NO LONGER WISH TO BANG MY HEAD ON A WALL BUT STILL WANT TO AKNOWLEDGE THAT PERSONS POSITION. I SOMETIMES STOP POSTING ALTOGETHER BECAUSE IM STILL LIVING LIFE ON THIS END OF THE COMPUTER AND I AM NO LONGER WITHIN REACH OF THE SCREEN OR THE KEYBOARD. IF ANYONE FEELS MY STATEMENTS DONT SUPPORT MY CONCLUSIONS THEY ARE FREE TO POST THE INCONSISTENCY JUST LIKE I DO WHEN I FEEL THAT WAY ABOUT THEIR POSTS. (although, inevitably, peoples posts make perfect logical sense to THEM) If you want to protect your IP rights you need to put forth the effort to find, and sue the perpetrators, shuffling off this burden to the content hosts is not a viable solution. SOPA IS DIRECTED AT THE PERPETRATORS (BEING A HOST DOESNT EXCUSE ANYONE), THERE ARE ALREADY PROCESSES FOR THE HOSTS TO ADDRESS VIOLATIONS ON THEIR CITES AND REPORT THEM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, the first amendment gives no freedom to disrupt so if the 347 bill is basically aimed at those who are engaged in a disruptive behavior with their MOUTHS,,,I dont see it as a threat its kind of like 'you cant yell fire in a crowded theater', except its 'you cant be disruptive in a restricted or official area where government or the president is operating or present' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, the first amendment gives no freedom to disrupt so if the 347 bill is basically aimed at those who are engaged in a disruptive behavior with their MOUTHS,,,I dont see it as a threat its kind of like 'you cant yell fire in a crowded theater', except its 'you cant be disruptive in a restricted or official area where government or the president is operating or present'  Maybe protestors can speak openly from within designated FEMA camps...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, the first amendment gives no freedom to disrupt so if the 347 bill is basically aimed at those who are engaged in a disruptive behavior with their MOUTHS,,,I dont see it as a threat its kind of like 'you cant yell fire in a crowded theater', except its 'you cant be disruptive in a restricted or official area where government or the president is operating or present' Maybe protestors can speak openly from within designated FEMA camps... as far as I understood the text of the 347 bill, protestors can still protest anywhere that is not 'restricted' or otherwise reserved for some type of 'government' business or presidential occupancy,,,, |
|
|
|
|
