| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
elkram
United States221 Posts
for info go to: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bssQuery?&Db=111&stepID=S*&stepD=o&stepD1=20101118 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r111:@FIELD(FLD003 d) @FIELD(DDATE 20101118) http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=senate_calendar&docid=sc007.pdf | ||
|
Phayze
Canada2029 Posts
| ||
|
kataa
United Kingdom384 Posts
On November 20 2010 05:46 Phayze wrote: Wouldnt censorship on this scale be a giant breach of the American constitution? How does a bill even get to the stage it's in without massive uproar. Law makers can be very sneaky, and most people don't pay enough attention to CSPAN (or BBC parliament). It's only when it reaches later stages that it starts getting on the news or posted on forums and people panic, but sometimes by then it's too late. | ||
|
Kakera
United States419 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
If all the outlash is against the extent of the power being given, then I might understand, but it doesn't seem to be the case. | ||
|
kataa
United Kingdom384 Posts
On November 20 2010 11:20 FabledIntegral wrote: Can someone go a little bit more into detail on why this is so awful? I mean, I certainly believe they shouldn't be given the control this act might provide. But at the same time the government needs some ability to shut down the sites that are providing massive copyright infringement, no? Or is it just tons of people in this thread who are taking advantage of this stuff are trying to use "privacy rights," to justify...? If all the outlash is against the extent of the power being given, then I might understand, but it doesn't seem to be the case. It would be an insanely massive blow to net neutrality, I'm not sure I could explain with a straight face why any internet user should want net neutrality. The law is not just limited to copy right infringement, its about giving courts a level of control over the internet they've never had before. So, yeah I would say it is the case. I mean obviously people would be frustrated about not being able to pirate, but seriously, we'd just go to back to 1997 - it wasn't so bad buying stuff  The big scary thing would be if we ended up with an internet which was dominated by censorship and court orders, where websites ceased to exist because of legal preceedings in the US. Media entities need to realize that IP right just won't work the way they are now, and find new pricing models. Stuff like this just isn't the way forward. | ||
|
unkkz
Norway2196 Posts
Honestly cannot believe the sickening double standards of corporate and political america(parts of it) claiming land of the free and all that stuff and then throw up something as despicable as this. Seriously every american sign that petition. Man the world is just going to hell in a handbasket. | ||
|
Scrimpton
United Kingdom465 Posts
There really is no logical argument though. Piracy is a crime. Pay for films you want to watch, pay for games you want to play. Doesn't get much simpler. | ||
|
Scrimpton
United Kingdom465 Posts
On November 20 2010 11:35 unkkz wrote: I dont see how every single journalist in the country isnt going ballistic about this? They would never manage to censor a newspaper or a news channel, but the internet is somehow different. If this does pass i wouldnt be surprised to see other western nations follow, and holy shit is this scaring me. Honestly cannot believe the sickening double standards of corporate and political america(parts of it) claiming land of the free and all that stuff and then throw up something as despicable as this. Seriously every american sign that petition. Man the world is just going to hell in a handbasket. You can't illegally download the work of other people from a newspaper or news channel. Stop acting like this is an infrigement of your rights :S - You don't have a right to the property put on sale by other people, you must pay for the right to own/use it. Now if this was used to censor things they dont want you to hear, rather than to prevent piracy, i can understand the outrage.. but this happens every day anyway. | ||
|
unkkz
Norway2196 Posts
On November 20 2010 11:41 Scrimpton wrote: Only American law ever presumes it can legislate the world. There really is no logical argument though. Piracy is a crime. Pay for films you want to watch, pay for games you want to play. Doesn't get much simpler. Very true, but the easy way to reduce piracy(reduce, u will never stop it completely, ever) is to make it more simple for consumers to obtaint the media. To begin with record labels are just a thing of the past, they are ancient fossils in a digital world that no longer needs them and they know it. Which is why they try to prevent the itnernet rather then utilizing it. This has happened so many times in the past and it seems society never ever freaking learns. It happened with AM and FM radio. Cassette tapes, cable TV and VCR's. It just goes on and on whenever a new medium arrives. This is all discussed in detal in a free book called Free Culture which can be downloaded at: http://www.free-culture.cc/ if every politician read that thing we'd be ridd of nonsense like this. There's a reason every media student in my school has to read it. | ||
|
unkkz
Norway2196 Posts
On November 20 2010 11:45 Scrimpton wrote: You can't illegally download the work of other people from a newspaper or news channel. Stop acting like this is an infrigement of your rights :S - You don't have a right to the property put on sale by other people, you must pay for the right to own/use it. Now if this was used to censor things they dont want you to hear, rather than to prevent piracy, i can understand the outrage.. but this happens every day anyway. This is exactly what it gives them the power to do. Do you not see the problem with this? And corporations will have a say in what's to be shut down or not, do you think they will remain even remotely objective? And again they are just doing this backwards, they should make it easier for legitimate consumers instead. Like the new DRM's for PC games are just a gigantic hassle for every legitimate costumer, but for the pirate they are a non issue for eventually they will be cracked and u dont have to deal with them. Outrageus things like if you reinstall your game more then three times you have to call EA state a reason why you reinstalled your game which you have legitimately bought and they can DENY you the right to continue playing it. That is just absurd and ironic since pirates wont ever have to deal with it, every DRM ever is going to get cracked, period. All it does it make life hell for legitimate consumers. Instead of fighting the internet they should embrace it. | ||
|
dinmsab
Malaysia2246 Posts
| ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
On November 20 2010 05:46 Phayze wrote: Wouldnt censorship on this scale be a giant breach of the American constitution? How does a bill even get to the stage it's in without massive uproar. There are times when bills that are unconstitutional that Senators and Congressmen know are unconstitutional get passed. However, it takes a good time before the courts will strike them down. A great example of this is the line item veto that Clinton had for about a year before the Supreme Court struck it down. | ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
On November 20 2010 11:41 Scrimpton wrote: Only American law ever presumes it can legislate the world. There really is no logical argument though. Piracy is a crime. Pay for films you want to watch, pay for games you want to play. Doesn't get much simpler. No, it is not quite that simple. Take for an example: I wrote a poem. You then memorize my poem from reading it in a bookstore. You go home and write my poem down. The pen is yours, the paper is yours, the time spent is yours. In effect, everything about the poem you've copied is yours. You don't make copies to sell the poem, you just have it in your bedside table for personal enjoyment. Now is it right for me to demand that you be put in jail for "pirating" my poem? In essence, electronic media is information, just like my poem is information. The pen that you used to recreate the poem is just like your PC at home. Its your PC and you are just "memorizing" and "rewriting" the 1s and 0s of digital information. The change in medium doesn't change anything. Piracy is not theft because the original creator has not lost anything through being copied from. Most will agree that the creator of an idea should be credited, not too many people dispute this. So I am not proposing that everyone put on their eye patches and sail the torrential seas of the interwebs for plundered booty, but I am trying to demonstrate that it is not as clear cut as some people would like to paint it as. To illuminate another facet of this complex issue, suppose two developers are neck to neck in releasing a program/game/movie. Both have their websites that are different in layout and text, but are essentially selling the same product because the product is so similar in function and by pure coincidence, style. Neither knows the existence of the other. If this law is passed, the first developer to release said product could sue and use this law to shut down the other guy's website, even if the target audience spoke a different language. Which in turn could mean an entire microcosm of innovation is shut down, because the website could have a small forum of innovative open source guys working on modding the product. Therefore any law arguing for intellectual property rights directly impedes innovative progress because it limits the number of talented people who have access to it. Yes, the previous example may have many coincidental and circumstantial holes in it, but I am only using it to point out the grey area in these arguments. Many people support copyright laws because they think "IF WE DONT DO THIS THEN THE POOR REATOR WILL BE LEACHED DRY BY ALL THE ASSHOLE PIRATES!!!" There are other options. For example, it can be approached from a contractual law point of view. Where when you buy something you have to sign a contract that you will not replicate it. Then the creator can be protected through contractual obligation, rather than from copyright law. I am not a law-literate person by any means, so i would defer to anyone with more expertise, but these are the shades of grey that I feel are so often overlooked in people who rush for the Banhammer for all solutions. | ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
In essence, copyright laws guarantee that the creator has a monopoly in selling his idea, and this monopoly is not just a flimsy thing that expires after a few years, usually such protection lasts for 100 years or more. Which is more than enough time for a company to grow strong and maintain an established monopoly. Now if you are for copyright law, you would say: "well shit, the guy came up with the idea in the first place, he deserves to have a monopoly! Therefore the government should protect that from evil pirates and neck-to-neck competitors who will steal his market share!" But these people who turn to the government for all solutions will also say, in a different forum thread: "well we HAVE to have government because otherwise who will break up evil tyrant corporate monopolies! Those asshole monopolies will charge whatever the fuck prices they want, and milk us poor consumers dry! We need the government to fuck them up so that its more fair for us small potatoes!" In one instance, you are supporting the creation of monopolies, in another, you are crying about the injustice of huge corporations. Well you can't have it both ways. ---- Edit: oops pardon my double post, wasn't thinking. | ||
|
IrT4nkz
229 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On November 20 2010 12:40 Railxp wrote: No, it is not quite that simple. Take for an example: I wrote a poem. You then memorize my poem from reading it in a bookstore. You go home and write my poem down. The pen is yours, the paper is yours, the time spent is yours. In effect, everything about the poem you've copied is yours. You don't make copies to sell the poem, you just have it in your bedside table for personal enjoyment. Now is it right for me to demand that you be put in jail for "pirating" my poem? In essence, electronic media is information, just like my poem is information. The pen that you used to recreate the poem is just like your PC at home. Its your PC and you are just "memorizing" and "rewriting" the 1s and 0s of digital information. The change in medium doesn't change anything. Piracy is not theft because the original creator has not lost anything through being copied from. Most will agree that the creator of an idea should be credited, not too many people dispute this. So I am not proposing that everyone put on their eye patches and sail the torrential seas of the interwebs for plundered booty, but I am trying to demonstrate that it is not as clear cut as some people would like to paint it as. To illuminate another facet of this complex issue, suppose two developers are neck to neck in releasing a program/game/movie. Both have their websites that are different in layout and text, but are essentially selling the same product because the product is so similar in function and by pure coincidence, style. Neither knows the existence of the other. If this law is passed, the first developer to release said product could sue and use this law to shut down the other guy's website, even if the target audience spoke a different language. Which in turn could mean an entire microcosm of innovation is shut down, because the website could have a small forum of innovative open source guys working on modding the product. Therefore any law arguing for intellectual property rights directly impedes innovative progress because it limits the number of talented people who have access to it. Yes, the previous example may have many coincidental and circumstantial holes in it, but I am only using it to point out the grey area in these arguments. Many people support copyright laws because they think "IF WE DONT DO THIS THEN THE POOR REATOR WILL BE LEACHED DRY BY ALL THE ASSHOLE PIRATES!!!" There are other options. For example, it can be approached from a contractual law point of view. Where when you buy something you have to sign a contract that you will not replicate it. Then the creator can be protected through contractual obligation, rather than from copyright law. I am not a law-literate person by any means, so i would defer to anyone with more expertise, but these are the shades of grey that I feel are so often overlooked in people who rush for the Banhammer for all solutions. lmao piracy is not a theft because the original person hasn't lost anything? you're full of it and it's an absolutely terrible argument. | ||
|
Avaloch
241 Posts
| ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On November 20 2010 17:00 FabledIntegral wrote: lmao piracy is not a theft because the original person hasn't lost anything? you're full of it and it's an absolutely terrible argument. how did the original creator lose anything? his argument is completely valid and i agree with it completely. | ||
|
RoarMan
Canada745 Posts
On November 20 2010 22:42 Avaloch wrote: I believe piracy is a theft because the distribution of the pirated item would cause a loss of income that could have been generated from the sales of the item. Honestly if feels like they're just using piracy as an excuse, censoring the internet could turn out to be what they're doing in China and look how that's going :/ I mean loss of potential income sure but the entertainment industry is still a billion dollar industry. People still buy albums and video games to show support, it's not like these industries are at any immediate risk of dying, they're just losing money. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs EffOrt
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
OSC
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs herO
Clem vs Reynor
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
