The White House today proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making "illegal streaming" of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.
In a 20-page white paper (PDF), the Obama administration called on the U.S. Congress to fix "deficiencies that could hinder enforcement" of intellectual property laws.
The report was prepared by Victoria Espinel, the first Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator who received Senate confirmation in December 2009, and represents a broad tightening of many forms of intellectual property law including ones that deal with counterfeit pharmaceuticals and overseas royalties for copyright holders. (See CNET's report last month previewing today's white paper.)
Some of the highlights:
• The White House is concerned that "illegal streaming of content" may not be covered by criminal law, saying "questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works." To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to "clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances."
• Under federal law, wiretaps may only be conducted in investigations of serious crimes, a list that was expanded by the 2001 Patriot Act to include offenses such as material support of terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction. The administration is proposing to add copyright and trademark infringement, arguing that move "would assist U.S. law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate those offenses."
• Under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it's generally illegal to distribute hardware or software--such as the DVD-decoding software Handbrake available from a server in France--that can "circumvent" copy protection technology. The administration is proposing that if Homeland Security seizes circumvention devices, it be permitted to "inform rightholders," "provide samples of such devices," and assist "them in bringing civil actions."
The term "fair use" does not appear anywhere in the report. But it does mention Web sites like The Pirate Bay, which is hosted in Sweden, when warning that "foreign-based and foreign-controlled Web sites and Web services raise particular concerns for U.S. enforcement efforts." (See previous coverage of a congressional hearing on overseas sites.)
The usual copyright hawks, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, applauded the paper, which grew out of a so-called joint strategic plan that Vice President Biden and Espinel announced in June 2010.
Rob Calia, a senior director at the Chamber's Global Intellectual Property Center, said we "strongly support the white paper's call for Congress to clarify that criminal copyright infringement through unauthorized streaming, is a felony. We know both the House and Senate are looking at this issue and encourage them to work closely with the administration and other stakeholders to combat this growing threat."
In October 2008, President Bush signed into law the so-called Pro IP ACT, which created Espinel's position and increased penalties for infringement, after expressing its opposition to an earlier version.
Unless legislative proposals--like one nearly a decade ago implanting strict copy controls in digital devices--go too far, digital copyright tends not to be a particularly partisan topic. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, near-universally disliked by programmers and engineers for its anti-circumvention section, was approved unanimously in the U.S. Senate.
At the same time, Democratic politicians tend to be a bit more enthusiastic about the topic. Biden was a close Senate ally of copyright holders, and President Obama picked top copyright industry lawyers for Justice Department posts. Last year, Biden warned that "piracy is theft."
No less than 78 percent of political contributions from Hollywood went to Democrats in 2008, which is broadly consistent with the trend for the last two decades, according to OpenSecrets.org.
So technically would this make streamers playing music illegal? Will this affect people who stream video games? What about video games that contain copyrighted audio? So much for the support of an open internet from the Obama administration...
SC2 is copyrighted, it's soundtrack is copyrighted.
And WTF?! who the hell gave them the keys to police the WWW?! sites that are hosted and operated outside of US borders should be protected from those morons(tvshack sound familiar?)
no one's taking my torrents from me! NO ONE!
it's like going to war against the country that's operating the site(needs to be stretched a little bit, but yeah, i think you could make it sound like that)
On March 18 2011 17:06 R0YAL wrote: Wonder if they will even care about streaming video games.
That probably depends how many game developers wants that no one streams their game. I'd say its a big mistake if a company decides so. Especially in Blizzards case.
It's unfortunate that this man was warned, as his post summarizes my sentiments precisely.
Also, I hope this legislation is more meant for music and not people streaming a video game. I see no reason for the FBI to crack down on professional Starcraft...
I'm all for musicians (and any other artist for that matter) getting paid for their work, I think copyright is a good thing and I don't personally illegally download music, as I like to support those bands (and labels) that I like.
Songs played on gamer-streams are probably more like advertising than infringing on copyrights though. I'm sure a lot of artists would be happy to get their songs played to thousands of viewers/listeners - a prime audience of young men.
You guys remember the FBI warnings at the beginning of all movies on VHS and DVD? This is basically the same thing. Unless you're a major streamer this won't affect you.
On March 18 2011 17:30 BenBuford wrote: I'm all for musicians (and any other artist for that matter) getting paid for their work, I think copyright is a good thing and I don't personally illegally download music, as I like to support those bands (and labels) that I like.
Songs played on gamer-streams are probably more like advertising than infringing on copyrights though. I'm sure a lot of artists would be happy to get their songs played to thousands of viewers/listeners - a prime audience of young men.
This. Free advertisement for games / music? Hell yes!
It's not like most of the streamers are making any money from the songs / game. There are some that get paid by the streaming site but yeah, I guess it's a grey area. Won't know till people start getting sued.
On March 18 2011 13:17 chaoser wrote: So technically would this make streamers playing music illegal? Will this affect people who stream video games? What about video games that contain copyrighted audio? So much for the support of an open internet from the Obama administration...
Technically all those things are already copyright violations. Video game companies are never going to go after streamers because they suffer no damages, streaming is free advertising, and it'd be terrible PR if they sued someone for streaming a game. Maybe a company would get mad if you streamed an entire playthrough of a single player game with no replay value, but for multiplayer games like Starcraft, no way. As for music, well it took the music industry years to catch on to Internet radio and Youtube. Who's to say that they won't clamp down on people streaming copyrighted music next...
If you skim the 20 page paper linked in the article, it's almost entirely about counterfeit drugs, national defense, organized crime, and shit like that. The relevant part is a recommendation for Congress to "clarify" that streaming content is distribution and not a public performance. Both are already copyright violations, but only reproduction and distribution can be criminal acts, not publicly performing. As has already been said, the government is concerned with people streaming premium TV content, PPV stuff, etc. and not you streaming your Starcraft matches. Odds are that Congress won't do anything anyway so don't lose any sleep over it.
This is interesting, how are you going to police something like this O.o the internet is worldwide! I guess they would have authority over American streamers being accessed by other American internet users ... seems like a pointless move imo. If you really want to crack down on piracy it needs to be a worldwide move, which is never going to happen which makes me exceedingly happy internet nerds agree that they love free stuff and countries agree that its illegal and should be banned but cant agree how to stop it.
Got a bit side-tracked there but anyway, this probably won't affect anybody who streams SC2
So i didnt quite read the whole thing because its a wall of text but from my understanding they are trying to include copyright infringement in the patriot act so they can wire tap to help fight it? Seems like that is just one step towords ending a right to privacy because once you start allowing other things to be intruded on that dont have to do with national security you open the floodgates for other things to be "spyed" on for lack of a better term. Bottom line I don't like it.
Honestly, I cant tell you how many games i bought because they looked fun when other streamers were playing it. I can't tell you how many good songs I have bought from listening to peoples stream (I only buy songs off itunes that I really really really like)
I think this law is for the people that are streaming movies and television shows there's a lot of them on JTV alone.
This is on the whole good, GomTV restreams shouldnt be allowed, though all streaming companies are already taking action on them as soon as they find them.
So people cant stream with music anymore? thats crap.
On March 18 2011 18:06 te3l wrote: Honestly, I cant tell you how many games i bought because they looked fun when other streamers were playing it. I can't tell you how many good songs I have bought from listening to peoples stream (I only buy songs off itunes that I really really really like)
I think this law is for the people that are streaming movies and television shows there's a lot of them on JTV alone.
It's that and radio/music, it's the reproduction and distribution that always been the target.
I hope I am not alone in having made the disturbing observation that governments all over seem to be cracking down hard on personal privacy, especially on the Internet.
This is shaping up to be the civil rights struggle of our generation.
On March 18 2011 18:22 Odal wrote: I can't wait to go to jail for sharing entertainment.
? You just figured out you can go to jail for that. Have you never seen the FBI warnings before watching a vhs dvd etc. How you never heard of the people getting stupid high fines or jail time for distribution of music and movies. Usually just fines if you're just seeding something on a torrent as you are not the original ripper you are part of the supply chain and thus accountable for distribution. If entertainment was free then who would play the writers,actors, composers?
On March 18 2011 18:29 Brian333 wrote: Nice try, but it's not going to work. The internet has become larger than any nation, any law, and regulation.
yup it's why you see people all the time doing things online and never paying any sort of consequence for such actions. Also child porn is rampant and other stuff and things.
Nice try, but it's not going to work. The internet has become larger than any nation, any law, and regulation.
It's just a waste of time to try and fight the internet to protect corporations and what not. You aren't winning that war. They should look more towards embracing, incorporating, and adapting to the current age rather than desperately trying to hang onto something they already lost.
On March 18 2011 17:35 Zim23 wrote: You guys remember the FBI warnings at the beginning of all movies on VHS and DVD? This is basically the same thing. Unless you're a major streamer this won't affect you.
reasons people remove those from the actual videos is because they don't want to watch advertisements each time they put a disc in, so they remux the bdmv/bdiso
also prevents the video players from downsampling audio/video
Because, this is whats wrong in America, people re-streaming copyrighted content. Once we crack down on this issue, the income gap will decrease, education levels will soar, college enrollment rates skyrocket, poverty rates will decline.
The White House today proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making "illegal streaming" of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.
In a 20-page white paper (PDF), the Obama administration called on the U.S. Congress to fix "deficiencies that could hinder enforcement" of intellectual property laws.
The report was prepared by Victoria Espinel, the first Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator who received Senate confirmation in December 2009, and represents a broad tightening of many forms of intellectual property law including ones that deal with counterfeit pharmaceuticals and overseas royalties for copyright holders. (See CNET's report last month previewing today's white paper.)
Some of the highlights:
• The White House is concerned that "illegal streaming of content" may not be covered by criminal law, saying "questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works." To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to "clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances."
• Under federal law, wiretaps may only be conducted in investigations of serious crimes, a list that was expanded by the 2001 Patriot Act to include offenses such as material support of terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction. The administration is proposing to add copyright and trademark infringement, arguing that move "would assist U.S. law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate those offenses."
• Under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it's generally illegal to distribute hardware or software--such as the DVD-decoding software Handbrake available from a server in France--that can "circumvent" copy protection technology. The administration is proposing that if Homeland Security seizes circumvention devices, it be permitted to "inform rightholders," "provide samples of such devices," and assist "them in bringing civil actions."
So technically would this make streamers playing music illegal? Will this affect people who stream video games? What about video games that contain copyrighted audio? So much for the support of an open internet from the Obama administration...
Tried to do a little bit of research since I'm not quite up to date with the news but if the Patriot Act is to help against terrorism, and they're raising illegal streaming to a federal felony on a level such that the Patriot Act covers it, it seems that either they're putting illegal streaming on the level of domestic terrorism or they're misusing the Patriot Act.
Another thought - if 'piracy is theft' and grand theft isn't covered by the Patriot Act (or is it? the wiki page is long), then why should illegal streaming be covered by it?
On March 18 2011 17:30 BenBuford wrote: I'm all for musicians (and any other artist for that matter) getting paid for their work, I think copyright is a good thing and I don't personally illegally download music, as I like to support those bands (and labels) that I like.
Songs played on gamer-streams are probably more like advertising than infringing on copyrights though. I'm sure a lot of artists would be happy to get their songs played to thousands of viewers/listeners - a prime audience of young men.
True... so true... im tired of all these copyright laws ... it makes me want to never pay for music or movies again...
Sometimes I just wish the rest of the world could just cut off the US and make our own internet.. Especially sad to see how american lobbies have such huge influence over our own politicians and manage to pass almost any legislation here.
On March 18 2011 19:20 Redunzl wrote: Boy, I love living in China where none of this bullshit exists.
Yup where you can bootleg a Bentley and 60% of IE6 users come from. :D People in China would be peeved about intellectual property if they created more of their own, instead of just copying others. you know happenstance.
Doesn't America have bigger agendas to really worry about then this...
if this is like the drug war, where large sacks of money are invested into something with little accomplishment (like prosecution of, say, marijuana), then...
On March 19 2011 02:23 heroyi wrote: Doesn't America have bigger agendas to really worry about then this...
if this is like the drug war, where large sacks of money are invested into something with little accomplishment (like prosecution of, say, marijuana), then...
well wtf...
Cost per effectiveness, you saying that government can't do more then 3 things? That they had to drop everything to propose this? Which is not a bill in itself. This is a much easier idea to push though then other more pressing matters, because it's the decisions that people are divided upon that throwing more people at it doesn't help.
On March 19 2011 02:23 heroyi wrote: Doesn't America have bigger agendas to really worry about then this...
if this is like the drug war, where large sacks of money are invested into something with little accomplishment (like prosecution of, say, marijuana), then...
well wtf...
Cost per effectiveness, you saying that government can't do more then 3 things? That they had to drop everything to propose this? Which is not a bill in itself. This is a much easier idea to push though then other more pressing matters, because it's the decisions that people are divided upon that throwing more people at it doesn't help.
im not questioning whether the government cant multitask.
But for them to declare "war" on internet piracy is...well futile.
right now the cost per effectiveness for the drug war is pretty shitty right now. Lets just hope that this could actually help stimulate the economy a little (new departments hiring, more people buying etc...).
They're doing this because ppl keep restreaming NBA, NFL, MLB, UFC, Boxing matches... they've already shut down atdhe.net recently because of it. This won't affect sc2 streaming at all. The world does not exist to fuck over sc2 gamers.
I love the people saying government should be doing something better with their time. Makes it sound like they're only doing this the whole fucking day. I see nothing wrong with them doing this. NBA NFL MBL have legal subscriber based streaming available. Anyone that using restreams is stealing and should be prosecuted as thieves.
On March 19 2011 02:23 heroyi wrote: Doesn't America have bigger agendas to really worry about then this...
if this is like the drug war, where large sacks of money are invested into something with little accomplishment (like prosecution of, say, marijuana), then...
well wtf...
Cost per effectiveness, you saying that government can't do more then 3 things? That they had to drop everything to propose this? Which is not a bill in itself. This is a much easier idea to push though then other more pressing matters, because it's the decisions that people are divided upon that throwing more people at it doesn't help.
im not questioning whether the government cant multitask.
But for them to declare "war" on internet piracy is...well futile.
right now the cost per effectiveness for the drug war is pretty shitty right now. Lets just hope that this could actually help stimulate the economy a little (new departments hiring, more people buying etc...).
well unlike something like a drug war the house and senate is not really divided upon piracy.
Under federal law, wiretaps may only be conducted in investigations of serious crimes, a list that was expanded by the 2001 Patriot Act to include offenses such as material support of terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction. The administration is proposing to add copyright and trademark infringement, arguing that move "would assist U.S. law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate those offenses."
There was all sorts of rhetoric that popped up around the time of the institution of the Patriot Act (and for considerable time afterward--hell, it's still going) that it could lead to crazy stretches of power by the government. Ways that could ease the clamping down on the population. I'd always thought that kind of talk was just paranoid fear-mongering, but to extend the Act to the internet so easily...
I find it hard to imagine that "use of weapons of mass destruction" should be dealt with the same way as copyright infringement.
Some of the comments in this thread are pretty ridiculous. The federal government isn't going to spend their time prosecuting people for playing copyrighted music on their streams. Use your heads.
On March 19 2011 02:32 ffz wrote: They're doing this because ppl keep restreaming NBA, NFL, MLB, UFC, Boxing matches... they've already shut down atdhe.net recently because of it. This won't affect sc2 streaming at all. The world does not exist to fuck over sc2 gamers.
It would give an organization like the RIAA an excuse to sue streamers over playing music with their stream. It doesn't mean it will happen, but the RIAA makes most of their cases going after generally clueless people and making examples out of them. A bill like this is actually something streamers should worry about.
On March 18 2011 17:06 R0YAL wrote: Wonder if they will even care about streaming video games.
"they" will be a few thousand bad and low level lawyers with no morals. Sending you declarations to cease and desist and pay 100$ + 50 for the tough job they have done, none of which will go to the owners of the copyrighted material.
On March 19 2011 02:41 motbob wrote: Some of the comments in this thread are pretty ridiculous. The federal government isn't going to spend their time prosecuting people for playing copyrighted music on their streams. Use your heads.
The fact that they could and that it would be a felony is still pretty worrying.
On March 19 2011 02:41 motbob wrote: Some of the comments in this thread are pretty ridiculous. The federal government isn't going to spend their time prosecuting people for playing copyrighted music on their streams. Use your heads.
But they COULD. Probably 99.9% of them they won't. But do you want to be that 0.01% that gets made an example of? I wouldn't want my computer to be wiretapped.
Video game companies are never going to go after streamers because they suffer no damages, streaming is free advertising, and it'd be terrible PR if they sued someone for streaming a game.
Unless you're Blizzard, hehehe. "The suffer no damages" part is moot to Blizzard :O
On March 19 2011 02:41 motbob wrote: Some of the comments in this thread are pretty ridiculous. The federal government isn't going to spend their time prosecuting people for playing copyrighted music on their streams. Use your heads.
The fact that they could and that it would be a felony is still pretty worrying.
Not really. They can also arrest me for downloading music, yet i'm not really afraid of that, nobody is. It doesnt matter to 99.9999% of all people downloading illegal music.
Blizzard is supporting streamers as evident on their planned improved interface for casters in observer mode and replays, I wouldn't be worried about streaming games. Still, more laws on the internet always make me cringe.
On March 19 2011 02:41 motbob wrote: Some of the comments in this thread are pretty ridiculous. The federal government isn't going to spend their time prosecuting people for playing copyrighted music on their streams. Use your heads.
But they COULD. Probably 99.9% of them they won't. But do you want to be that 0.01% that gets made an example of? I wouldn't want my computer to be wiretapped.
I agree with Gatsbi. I doubt it would happen, but if it did....
Doubt there is much worry for streamers. The real issue I have is that little addition of wiretaps.
Currently they can get wiretaps for chemical weapons offenses, use of weapons of mass destruction, violent acts of terrorism transcending national borders, financial transactions with countries that support terrorism, material support of terrorism, and material support of terrorist organizations...and add copyright infringement?..
I think you should all be debating the actual issue, as in do you think jail time for copyright infringing by streaming is an offense that should give jail time, which is what the proposed law seems to do.
Everyone knows the current system for entertainment distribution is no longer compatible with the internet age. Instead of making grand statements and harshly punishing a few by example, they should figure out how to monetize free content. It's so simple I don't know why people are resisting it.
On March 19 2011 08:36 nbaker wrote: Everyone knows the current system for entertainment distribution is no longer compatible with the internet age. Instead of making grand statements and harshly punishing a few by example, they should figure out how to monetize free content. It's so simple I don't know why people are resisting it.
That's up for an industry to do, it's not the governments role to tell the entrainment industry how to make money. It's only their role to enforce rules set in place which a lot of people break. Anyways this is aimed at those who stream like pay per view events on line, it opens up the tools needed to properly gather the info for a prosecution.
The White House today proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making "illegal streaming" of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.
In a 20-page white paper (PDF), the Obama administration called on the U.S. Congress to fix "deficiencies that could hinder enforcement" of intellectual property laws.
The report was prepared by Victoria Espinel, the first Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator who received Senate confirmation in December 2009, and represents a broad tightening of many forms of intellectual property law including ones that deal with counterfeit pharmaceuticals and overseas royalties for copyright holders. (See CNET's report last month previewing today's white paper.)
Some of the highlights:
• The White House is concerned that "illegal streaming of content" may not be covered by criminal law, saying "questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works." To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to "clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances."
• Under federal law, wiretaps may only be conducted in investigations of serious crimes, a list that was expanded by the 2001 Patriot Act to include offenses such as material support of terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction. The administration is proposing to add copyright and trademark infringement, arguing that move "would assist U.S. law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate those offenses."
• Under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it's generally illegal to distribute hardware or software--such as the DVD-decoding software Handbrake available from a server in France--that can "circumvent" copy protection technology. The administration is proposing that if Homeland Security seizes circumvention devices, it be permitted to "inform rightholders," "provide samples of such devices," and assist "them in bringing civil actions."
The term "fair use" does not appear anywhere in the report. But it does mention Web sites like The Pirate Bay, which is hosted in Sweden, when warning that "foreign-based and foreign-controlled Web sites and Web services raise particular concerns for U.S. enforcement efforts." (See previous coverage of a congressional hearing on overseas sites.)
The usual copyright hawks, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, applauded the paper, which grew out of a so-called joint strategic plan that Vice President Biden and Espinel announced in June 2010.
Rob Calia, a senior director at the Chamber's Global Intellectual Property Center, said we "strongly support the white paper's call for Congress to clarify that criminal copyright infringement through unauthorized streaming, is a felony. We know both the House and Senate are looking at this issue and encourage them to work closely with the administration and other stakeholders to combat this growing threat."
In October 2008, President Bush signed into law the so-called Pro IP ACT, which created Espinel's position and increased penalties for infringement, after expressing its opposition to an earlier version.
Unless legislative proposals--like one nearly a decade ago implanting strict copy controls in digital devices--go too far, digital copyright tends not to be a particularly partisan topic. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, near-universally disliked by programmers and engineers for its anti-circumvention section, was approved unanimously in the U.S. Senate.
At the same time, Democratic politicians tend to be a bit more enthusiastic about the topic. Biden was a close Senate ally of copyright holders, and President Obama picked top copyright industry lawyers for Justice Department posts. Last year, Biden warned that "piracy is theft."
No less than 78 percent of political contributions from Hollywood went to Democrats in 2008, which is broadly consistent with the trend for the last two decades, according to OpenSecrets.org.
So technically would this make streamers playing music illegal? Will this affect people who stream video games? What about video games that contain copyrighted audio? So much for the support of an open internet from the Obama administration...
I love how people actually believed -- and still believe -- that the Obama administration supports "open internet" simply because Obama says he does in speeches. Actions speak louder than words. He's supported "open internet" in the same way that he's supported whistle-blowers -- not at all unless his political enemies are the ones that suffer. First and foremost the man his a politician.
TBH, I'm a little disappointed by the lack of reaction in this thread. If it was the Bush administration doing this we'd be at 20 pages of pure hate by now, but TLnet still hasn't gotten beyond "right or left." :/
Fuck that, they better not consider streaming video games infringement... I'll be pissed. Also, I'm glad that they are spending their time on important issues like these..
probably a good step in protecting intellectual property. while i like tv shows, movies, and other forms of media to be easily available for free, it's kinda outta control.
websites that organize collections of links to streaming media are totally leeching off of the writers, actors, producers, and so on that were involved in creating the content.
TBH, I'm a little disappointed by the lack of reaction in this thread. If it was the Bush administration doing this we'd be at 20 pages of pure hate by now, but TLnet still hasn't gotten beyond "right or left." :/
On March 19 2011 09:30 GreEny K wrote: Fuck that, they better not consider streaming video games infringement... I'll be pissed. Also, I'm glad that they are spending their time on important issues like these..
you can fully enjoy a movie or a song that's streaming. you can hardly enjoy a video game. what i mean is, there's not enough demand for watching other people play video games to get considerable ad revenue to make the game companies get upset and try to take control of that revenue by claiming rights to even sharing videos/streams of people PLAYING games.
They would only have jurisdiction in the USA. surely congress isn't dumb enough to pass such an invasive law for no reason. This would be another gross misallocation of resources to pursue petty crimes.
Mr President, with all do respect, pull your head out of your ass, clean up the drugs, murders, burglary, theft, fix education, etc. There is so much more you could be doing than catering to a couple of organizations (RIAA, MPAA, etc) that are just as crooked as the people they are trying to stop.
I'm pretty certain this is geared toward restreaming copyrighted content. NFL games, boxing/MMA, or even, say, an audio restream of a radio show like Howard Stern or Colin Cowherd on ESPN radio.
Playing some Pink Floyd in the background while you play StarCraft isn't going to be sending anyone to jail or giving you a fine in the mail.
some people have been commenting on the legality of streaming starcraft. i was under the impression that restreaming starcraft, as long as its not for profit (and if it is, you have to go through that whole tourney application thing with blizzard) blizzard are ok with people streaming and stuff.
now having music play while you play might be a different matter, but again if you look at how the music industry has tried to crack down on file sharing. the small time user, and people who arent making money, arent who they are focusing on, its the people monetising this free content they are concentrating on, so i dont think we will see the grack getting sent to fail for his terrible choice in music just yet.
There will come a time when the movie/music industry will beg us to take their content because all these free youTube stars and amature movie makers giving things away for free will produce enjoyable content without any of these restrictions on people spreading the love .... death to hollywood and the JustinBritney or whatever his name is... stupid manufactured dribble, grass roots forever!
TBH, I'm a little disappointed by the lack of reaction in this thread. If it was the Bush administration doing this we'd be at 20 pages of pure hate by now, but TLnet still hasn't gotten beyond "right or left." :/
TL feels super leftist to me
I think TL is a little more left than right, but we have a pretty good spread between the two. There's plenty of conservatives as well as progressives here. It makes for some pretty good debates.
But as for wiretapping and felony charges for copyright infringement, that isn't really a left/right debate as far as I know.
Personally, I think wiretapping and felony charges is completely over the line. Wiretapping should be reserved for something that warrants it. Privacy is one of the most important values that the law ought to uphold.
So ridiculous if this does end up passing. They just slap national security on a bill and it will pass unanimously regardless of what it is about. Unless this effects UFC streams, it won't really mean much to me.
Looks like the U.S government is bending over for the entertainment, and prison lobbyists. What a fucking shame.
"Intellectual Property" is one of the most broken things in modern law. It has been having a negative effect on the quality on art, music, literature, and science since it became ingrained in law. The only thing it has had a "positive" effect on is "business." But that business has been lowering the quality of everything it touches. Just look at the modern renaissance of free thought and creativity the internet has created. It isn't ripping people off, it's giving people a chance to create new and valuable content and getting it directly to people without having to go through and pay a middle man. The government isn't "cracking down" to protect people's valuable property from thieves. It's trying to crackdown because big business is threatened by the fact that suddenly people can get better content from more direct sources and are leaving the entertainment industry in the dust. So yes, they ARE going to crack down on people who are playing Pink Floyd in the background of their streams. Not because they're costing anybody any money, but because those people and their content are detracting from the industry's ability to force people to consume their content. It's sick and the people that are going to suffer from it are the creative geniuses that are actually creating great material, and the audiences who love it. The only people who are going to benefit are those who are out to make a buck. If you don't believe me, pick an entertainment industry and look into how it actually works. You'll be sickened.
There will come a time when the movie/music industry will beg us to take their content because all these free youTube stars and amature movie makers giving things away for free will produce enjoyable content without any of these restrictions on people spreading the love .... death to hollywood and the JustinBritney or whatever his name is... stupid manufactured dribble, grass roots forever!
On March 19 2011 02:23 heroyi wrote: Doesn't America have bigger agendas to really worry about then this...
if this is like the drug war, where large sacks of money are invested into something with little accomplishment (like prosecution of, say, marijuana), then...
well wtf...
Cost per effectiveness, you saying that government can't do more then 3 things? That they had to drop everything to propose this? Which is not a bill in itself. This is a much easier idea to push though then other more pressing matters, because it's the decisions that people are divided upon that throwing more people at it doesn't help.
im not questioning whether the government cant multitask.
But for them to declare "war" on internet piracy is...well futile.
right now the cost per effectiveness for the drug war is pretty shitty right now. Lets just hope that this could actually help stimulate the economy a little (new departments hiring, more people buying etc...).
Such an effective argument. Let's do what is easy and not what is right, right?
Honestly, people here are a little bit too biased. How many people actually pay for music anymore? How many people torrent movies and games?
Name some of the legally free content that is actually good. Only thing that comes to mind is Radiohead's In Rainbows, and we see now that they aren't doing it again. Draw your own conclusion.
Clearly, the people who have benefited from this, us, would take the side in support of this behavior. While the entertainment industry, which has obviously suffered, would take the side against it. If you could lobby for your side, you would.
What argument is there against preventing piracy? Personal inconvenience? Intellectual property doesn't exist?
Sure, the entertainment industry makes millions, and you might sit in your home making an incredibly small fraction of that. But last time I checked, we aren't fans of communism. That's how much their human capital is worth. Don't like the fact that athletes get paid millions? Boycott watching sports. Think being a music artist is easy? Then go be one and enjoy your plentiful wealth. I won't mind.
They should focus more on the situation in Libya, Japan and less on infringement stuff like this, I guess money > genocide, massacre and natural disasters
On March 19 2011 13:23 Jayme wrote: Streaming -> Federal Felony
DWI -> Class B misdemeanor.
That's all I have to say.
One is illegal reproduction and distribution of a product across state even country lines, which makes it federal. The just puts lives in danger :D
Also you shouldn't be that peeved US federal prisons so fucking nice compared to state prison, if you commit a crime make sure it's a federal crime.
On March 19 2011 13:48 Rawenkeke wrote: They should focus more on the situation in Libya, Japan and less on infringement stuff like this, I guess money > genocide, massacre and natural disasters
Who says they can't do both, the idea that government must spend every ounce of their resources on like 28 things is ridiculous after awhile sending more people to work on a situation doesn't really produce better or faster results. Governments work slow esp the US things take time to develop so sending more people to work on something that you still will need to wait for other things to fall in place to which you have no control over is pointless.
On March 19 2011 13:59 wswordsmen wrote: This is stupid. They are restricting the growth of new technology by making anyone who wants to use it have to do back flips to do anything with it.
How is this restricting growth of new technology? Intellectual properly protection is essential to the development of new tech. If i spend 100mil developing something only to have another company jack it and reverse engineer it for 1 mil to them, and say we both have similar production costs and capabilities then i've just been boned out of 99 mil dollars. Meaning the next time i wont be developing things that are so costly maybe only spend 1 mil on r&d so the lul time between another company stealing and ramping up production i could make back the 1 mil i spent in r&d. piracy decreases the returns of profits in all industries, so if the money is not there then i need to scale back, look at the gaming industry types of games and crap has all been narrowed to fit profits.
This while smart, it stupid as hell, you can not even get on the gsl finals stream, also why is the us goverment wasting there time on stupid shit like this and not fixing real stuff!!
This has all gotten pretty damn ridiculous. In the beginning they cracked down on YouTube, but now they have pop-ups to sell songs and most major artists have a VEVO channel. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar implementation coming up now where people can put music in streams just like they can in YouTube videos. (In other words, that would be the smart approach that, apparently, they couldn't figure the hell out ahead of time.)
I wish we could get people that don't just think that the Internet is a series of tubes in the government. :/
There will come a time when the movie/music industry will beg us to take their content because all these free youTube stars and amature movie makers giving things away for free will produce enjoyable content without any of these restrictions on people spreading the love .... death to hollywood and the JustinBritney or whatever his name is... stupid manufactured dribble, grass roots forever!
You get me
You both get me.
Edit: Enervate, my friend, we LOVE communism! People in the US like to hate on socialism, but they're sure happy with the FDIC insuring their banks, required car insurance, etc. etc. Regardless of the forms of it that Americans oppose, they like many socialist policies (and Europe and Canada sure get along just fine with their stronger forms of it, don't they?).
On March 19 2011 13:48 Rawenkeke wrote: They should focus more on the situation in Libya, Japan and less on infringement stuff like this, I guess money > genocide, massacre and natural disasters
not everyone in the government/senate is an expert on foreign policy. they still have to run their own country bro
On March 18 2011 17:05 cynical wrote: This is like the war on drugs. It's not gonna do jack shit no matter what kind of laws they make or modify. You can't stop the internet baby!
They do occasionally arrest druglords and drugdealers. I don't want to be the one they pick to arrest.
And yeah, I was worried about this until I remembered I live in Canada! But then I realized that that only gives me about 2 years longer o.O.
No, in all seriousness, I understand where this is coming from, and, it IS warranted. That said, I think it will probably do more damage than it will good. People know that (following examples given in the thread) the World Cup, or HBO, etc., have extremely high ratings, and that those ratings don't even include the illegal methods of watching them. For that reason, the advertisement rates climb even higher, generating more money for the people emitting the content. Then again there are probably still more people watching legally.
I just doubt people who are watching illegal streams will bother to buy the content at all. They'll just find something else to do instead.
Also, here's another example:
Blizzcon. How many people watch Blizzcon illegally online? Probably more than there are people watching it legally. Of course I'm basing this on absolutely nothing, but judging by the shear quantity of channels that run during the event, and the amount of people chatting in them, it's easy to see where I'm getting the idea from.
Of course, taking legal actions vs. illegal streams would diminish the reach that Blizzcon has, thus diminishing Blizzard's biggest hype-building event.
Most of you guys are pretty hilarious. Jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted, and showcasing a remarkable ignorance of US law is really just rather amusing.
The purpose of enforcing criminal penalties against copyright infringers is a recognition that there are criminal rackets that go around doing things like videotaping movies and selling them on street corners (gee, sound familiar?)
The relevant law authorizing criminal liability on copyright infringers states that criminal penalties are appropriate for copyright infringement when the infringement was committed willfully:
1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain 2) the work reproduced or distributed had a total retail value exceeding $1000 with any 180-day period, or 3) distributing a work not yet commercially released onto a computer network when the distributor knew or should have known the work would be commercially released (see 17 usc 506)
The White House proposal does nothing other than to include 'streaming' in the definition of 'reproduce or distribute' (A analogy would be like including e-mail, or a printout, in the definition of 'written agreement' -- yes, there have been a plethora of lawsuits in the age of a printer where people focused on whether 'written agreement' includes a computer print-out--because it isn't written, you see) it won't affect you at all because the original law wasn't meant to apply to you.
It's really quite funny how a little research quells the mob fear so very easily.
Now, looking at SC2 streamers:
SC2 streamers do not willfully commit copyright infringement, period. They do it negligently, or recklessly, if they do it at all. They don't know if what they're doing infringes copyright simply by playing music over the Internet so friends and fans can watch it, and if they knew it was illegal (which it isn't), they would probably stop.
Even if SC2 streamers did commit willful copyright infringement by playing music on their streams, they don't do it for private financial gain. The fact that some may receive money for streaming doesn't rest on their choice of a soundtrack, it rests entirely on their skill at playing sc2, or their ability to entertain their watchers. They don't they leak unreleased music to the public (to the best of my knowledge), and assuming iTune's song cost of $1/ song, prosecutors would have to prove that a streamer played 1000 unique songs that are commercially available for purchase within a 180-day period (lol!).
Like the government cares about some nerd's choice of music while he is playing video games? They have more important things to worry about. (i.e., shutting down movie/tv streams available on youtube and megaupload and other similar sites)
So, since it says willfully, would that mean that if someone has a playlist of royalty free music, but a copyrighted song starts playing, would that mean they committed it willfully, or that it was an accident?
On May 18 2011 06:37 astroorion wrote: So, since it says willfully, would that mean that if someone has a playlist of royalty free music, but a copyrighted song starts playing, would that mean they committed it willfully, or that it was an accident?
That's obviously an accident. The criminal definition of 'willful' in this case means the actor acted intentionally, purposefully, or knowingly, with the goal of performing the criminal act. (he must know what he is doing is against the law, but does it anyway. 'willful' can also mean 'with evil purpose' but really only applies to things like 1st degree murder and sexual assault)
On May 18 2011 06:35 MozzarellaL wrote: Like the government cares about some nerd's choice of music while he is playing video games? They have more important things to worry about. (i.e., shutting down movie/tv streams available on youtube and megaupload and other similar sites)
My issue is that I read this and my first thought was not about SC2 streams, but about sites like NinjaVideo, and the ones that replaced it. It looks to me like this would still target the websites distributing and not the people watching (leechers like me), but it still isn't exactly good for my TV watching.
Yes, this will likely end up seriously harming the TV streaming websites... But then again, it's just as easy to download a torrent (which is already as illegal as streaming would be) anyway. Sure, itll be a little less convenient... Oh well. Torrents have better video quality anyway.
haha just because people are playing music while streaming doesnt mean they'll get in any more trouble than someone who brings a boom box to a park and plays music to random people. Just because someone didnt buy the song or album doesnt mean they're not allowed to listen to the music, the only way I can see anyone getting in trouble is if the were downloading it illegaly and streaming it and charging people to listen to it.
On May 19 2011 07:19 Bobbias wrote: Yes, this will likely end up seriously harming the TV streaming websites... But then again, it's just as easy to download a torrent (which is already as illegal as streaming would be) anyway. Sure, itll be a little less convenient... Oh well. Torrents have better video quality anyway.
TV streaming websites are stealing money, especially if they are streaming content that is otherwise not available without subscription (i.e., cable channels, sports networks, etc). The law also allow the US Government to go after people who upload torrents (well, it already does). (btw, just because they're in a foreign country does not shield them from US law, it's a common international law concept that a country has the right to arrest and try any foreign national who is engaged in criminal activity or conspiracy that actually harms, or is meant to harm, domestic interests)
I posted this in a new forum post before being directed to this post. Being new to the eSports scene, I'm not sure how much streaming was prevelant in SC:BW days, but it seems quite obvious, from just looking to your right, how much streaming practice, ladder, and tournaments really dominates the SC2 scene and its "downtime" from big events. S. 978 is a bill currently in the Judiciary committee up for vote regarding streaming music online (copyrighted music). I know it had previously been a request of Justin.tv to not stream music in the background, but it is a staple of many streams, such as IdrA, or really anyone of the former ROOT clan in particular (what is that song that they all play, with that dancing guy youtube video?). I watch a lot of streams, but admittedly get quite disinterested when there is just in game sounds and no vocal commentary. Not by any means does S. 978 ruin streaming, but it is an interesting bill. In part a person:
"shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if--
`(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and
`(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or
`(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;'; and"
Well, it goes on. So I want to hear your thoughts.
I am in a nice position that I can't really speak completely on, but I will say I do work on Capitol Hill, and while I don't have pull in an office persay, I am there, which allows me access to these hearings and resources for Congress to look into this bill. Though you aren't technically MY boss' consituents (necessarily), your opinions are important. I can report on what the result of the committee hearing tomorrow is, and I can also look into any questions you have. Its been off-and-on slow at the office, so I'd be happy to help.
I'd also suggest that if you have strong feelings, write your own Senator. Though many websites such as Demand Progress have a script that you can fill out about the bill (or any given bill), and you WILL get a response, the pieces that most people in offices pay attention to are well-written, convincing arguments on legislation with a personal touch. Make it your own and your response will be hopefully just as personal. I was encouraged to emphasize this point. I'm not sure what more I can do to do so, but I've worked in a few offices now and I will say, the names from the letters are taken down and then the same response is often sent to all, but thought-provoking messages can really cause a staffer to sit up in their chair and say... "Hey! I should look into this."
Please let me know your thoughts and more importantly your questions. The vote (committee vote/hearing) is tomorrow 10am EST. Please be prompt if you want research done. I'll only have an hour in office before hand, and one hour and 15 minutes after posting before I go home. Thanks!
I'm really against anything that strengthens copyright law in a way that reduces the value or amount of content for people. Any stream providing content beyond JUST streaming copyrighted material does not encroach on the value of the copyrighted material. No one is going to use an SC2 stream as a way to listen to music. Meanwhile SC2 streams have provided hundreds/thousands/hundreds of thousands of hours of quality unique content for many people and anything that restricts that seems to run against the best interest of the people. The same applies to many other types of streams that may broadcast copyrighted material as an insignificant side effect. All this seems like the sort of stuff that should be covered under some sort of Fair Use clause.
As for streams that aim only to redistribute copyrighted material, well I could go into a whole tirade about copyright in general, but that's a whole other argument (or maybe one that's really relevant to this law, I dunno).
Does this mean that youtube will have to remove every copyrighted song or game?? Will all internet radio will cease to exist as well?
The new millennium has been called the information age, but with these kind of actions and the actions taken against wiki leaks it's clear that governments are determined to assume control over the spread of information.
On June 16 2011 05:57 Reborn8u wrote: Does this mean that youtube will have to remove every copyrighted song or game?? Will all internet radio will cease to exist as well?
Some/many youtube videos and internet radio sites are legally streaming the material so not ALL of it would disappear at the very least.
For example, Pandora pays royalties (which is amusing since OTA radio stations get/used to get paid to play songs).
From the sounds of this law its aimed at people who are broadcasting on internet radio stations and the like rather than SC2 streamers where the main focus is the game and the music is incidental. However I understand that jtv et al must take a stance on their partnered streams to reduce copyright infringement, as I don't live in the states I can basically say "fuck you" and do it anyways but jtv ofc could get on my case (not that anyone watches my stream lol).
I doubt SC2 streamers will ever be pulled up by this law should it pass as their main focus isn't the music and that argument would hopefully hold up in court, so long as the streamer promised not to do it again in the future, in fact I would guess that most of the time you will get a warning and then if you continue you will get arrested etc, at which point it is your own fault lol.
On June 16 2011 05:57 Reborn8u wrote: Does this mean that youtube will have to remove every copyrighted song or game?? Will all internet radio will cease to exist as well?
As stated, my understanding is that legal internet radio will continue to exist. I will look into the rammifications on Youtube. As mentioned, people have worried about kids lipsyncing, etc. I think the norm lately has been that the music industry is appreciative of the music being used in videos as long as they are linked to the music and the option to purchase the song is available. See this awesome Youtube video for a demonstration of how music labels have used great videos for advertising, even going so far as to put a link to where they are playing next or near you.
On June 16 2011 05:54 Logo wrote: Cool stuff Kauz!
I'm really against anything that strengthens copyright law in a way that reduces the value or amount of content for people. Any stream providing content beyond JUST streaming copyrighted material does not encroach on the value of the copyrighted material. No one is going to use an SC2 stream as a way to listen to music. Meanwhile SC2 streams have provided hundreds/thousands/hundreds of thousands of hours of quality unique content for many people and anything that restricts that seems to run against the best interest of the people. The same applies to many other types of streams that may broadcast copyrighted material as an insignificant side effect. All this seems like the sort of stuff that should be covered under some sort of Fair Use clause.
As for streams that aim only to redistribute copyrighted material, well I could go into a whole tirade about copyright in general, but that's a whole other argument (or maybe one that's really relevant to this law, I dunno).
Thank you for your thoughtful message. I will bring this up with the chief council if I can grab her for a minute. She's very busy lately (just lost our staffer that would have been the correspondant for this issue).
Again, if you write this kind of stuff to your Senator (particularly tonight if your Senator sits on the Judiciary committee) before the vote is taken, this personal touch will go a long way.
On June 16 2011 05:57 Reborn8u wrote: Does this mean that youtube will have to remove every copyrighted song or game?? Will all internet radio will cease to exist as well?
The new millennium has been called the information age, but with these kind of actions and the actions taken against wiki leaks it's clear that governments are determined to assume control over the spread of information.
Youtube have deals with most record labels and they have some pretty damn cool software that can recognise songs, if the song is on their blacklist they simply take the video down and if its not it gets marked with a link to the original official version.
Internet radio also has a legit way to do things, if you rent a server via one of the big companies it usually comes with a PRS licence (or whatever it is called in your particular country) that covers you to broadcast the music, assuming that you obtained it legally. If you don't have a PRS licence, then you are breaking the law... that simple.
As a musician myself, downloading music for your own enjoyment is one thing and something I do on a regular basis, but using that music to make money is not cool and you shouldn't do it. If you download an album and you like it, go out and buy it, if you don't like it.... then you won't listen to it anyways and you aren't costing anyone money!
The problem is that copyright laws and patent laws were created before computers. Like the right to bear arms was put in play before guns that didn't take 5 minutes to load were invented. They are out of date and need to be scraped and start over from scratch. This modifying outdated laws will not work unless the goal is simply to get more people in the prisons. These laws go hand in hand with the anti-trust laws. With computers, we need standards so that we can all work together. Microsoft has been holding back any real innovation for the last 10 years because EU anti-trust group has been watching them. As soon as that ended a couple months ago, we started getting glimpses of the next OS and Microsoft bought Skype(never would have been allowed if still being watched). I bet they try to integrate Skype into every OS they make going forward. Laws against monopolies exist to make sure a company isn't causing more harm to consumers instead of good. Now they do the exact opposite. Now anti-monopoly laws hold back the progression of technology. This might not seem related but it is. It further shows that the laws in place, including the Constitution, are outdated and need to be replaced, not edited. Editing only creates more complex laws which requires more money to be wasted on lawyers to figure out what you can and cannot do. The way the US seems to worship its founding fathers as if they knew the future and somehow they know what is best for modern society is not reasonable in any way. These people thought bathing was not healthy and the general cure for illnesses was to bleed out a little. Obviously the founding fathers did not create the copyright laws that we use today, but those that did had no way of seeing the future just like the founding fathers created a great system for the time they lived in, however many of those laws are outdated and cause more problems today. According to Wikipedia, the origins of copyright laws come from the 15th and 16th centuries and were used to control what information got printed and distributed, not to protect the owner's financial status. 15th and 16th century technology and knowledge of science was completely different. Until the end of the 15th century, the world was suppose to be flat. Why do we(the world's population) insist on holding on to so many outdated ways of thinking?
For your information, the current Senators on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary are as follows:
In the Majority: Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Chairman Herb Kohl, Wisconsin Dianne Feinstein, California Chuck Schumer, New York Richard Durbin, Illinois Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Al Franken, Minnesota Chris Coons, Delaware Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut
In the Minority: Chuck Grassley, Iowa Ranking Member Orrin Hatch, Utah Jon Kyl, Arizona Jeff Sessions, Alabama Lindsey Graham, South Carolina John Cornyn, Texas Mike Lee, Utah Tom Coburn, Oklahoma
On June 16 2011 06:09 KomradeKevin wrote: These people thought bathing was not healthy and the general cure for illnesses was to bleed out a little...
Just for the record, this is only half right. There wasn't much indoor plumbing when the original segment of the capitol was built. If you go down to the basement (which you can't, but I've been down there), there are the remains of the old Senate baths which included tubs for the Senators to use to cool off and bathe if need be. It was supposedly the cool place to hang out. This was in 1800-1860ish.
Fun US Senate fact of the day. I could totally start the most boring blog ever.
Blizzard developers seemed to really like and support people like Day[9], so I wouldn't be too worried about Starcraft, unless those executives at Activision are actual cunts about it. I dunno, I don't think sueing people that stream games would be that gainful, for money or whatever reason.
On June 16 2011 06:09 KomradeKevin wrote: These people thought bathing was not healthy and the general cure for illnesses was to bleed out a little...
Just for the record, this is only half right. There wasn't much indoor plumbing when the original segment of the capitol was built. If you go down to the basement (which you can't, but I've been down there), there are the remains of the old Senate baths which included tubs for the Senators to use to cool off and bathe if need be. It was supposedly the cool place to hang out. This was in 1800-1860ish.
Fun US Senate fact of the day. I could totally start the most boring blog ever.
Bathing at the time was considered relaxing and enjoyable but unhealthy. Much like the way we see consuming alcohol is today.
Ok, well back on target. If theres anything you'd like looked into or questions to be asked, I'm more than happy to help. Rewriting all legislation isn't that feasible. Sorry.
Doesn't need to be all. I understand our politicians don't want to do actual work and use real thought. They would rather keep things the way they are since it is working for them. Not sure why other countries are willing to talk realistically about copyright laws like Russia. The US just doesn't have politicians that can think without getting paid to be told how to think. These are the ideas I am talking about. Russian President Proposes Creative Commons-Style Rules Baked Directly Into Copyright and Russia's Sane Thoughts on Copyright and Internet If these huge recording labels cannot find a way to make their money, let them fail to the free market that our country is suppose to adore. If the only way to monetize the new model is with smaller companies or even individuals alone then so be it. The "CEO's" and "CFO's" and "stock holders" do not need to be involved since computers make the production so much easier and less costly. These huge companies serve no purpose but to exploit the artists that they represent. Rewriting the legislation would be the right thing to do, even if it is hard. America use to pride itself on working hard. Now we are too lazy to do the right things so we let the corporations continue to have bigger voices than the real citizens of the country. You ask for ideas and opinions then you simply say it isn't possible so you will not even take the idea you were given anywhere. Why ask for ideas if you are only accepting the ones that are easy or that you like?
I dont think Blizzard will crack down on SC streaming for the reason that its a source of income for Pros and the pro scene is a major part of the community. The community is making them money so why destroy part of their source of income?
I'm sorry, but telling me that we're getting paid to pass legislation just isn't endearing, and then you're not actually giving me something workable. Basically what you're telling me is that I should go up to a sitting US Senator, tell him/her that they're a paid stool, and that instead of doing the easy thing and voting no and starting over, then looking at passing something that you suggested, they should go through procedural nightmares and adjust the language in the current proposition to do something that makes more sense? I thought you didn't want constant rewriting and changes to current legislation.
Why say you don't like something and then suggest the same thing? Not everyone is out to get you. Its not a big conspiracy, though I know a lot of people have fun imagining it is. Sadly I know a lot of people believe it too. You have a place at the table. Have a seat. And try to have a little more open of a mind.
Edit: You weren't giving me something workable before (just talking about how you think the US is crummy). You have now, but you didn't present it in the nicest fashion.
On June 16 2011 06:44 Syben wrote: I dont think Blizzard will crack down on SC streaming for the reason that its a source of income for Pros and the pro scene is a major part of the community. The community is making them money so why destroy part of their source of income?
I don't think Blizzard will either. I think the more concerning thing would be, where does the music go? Some might not think its a bad thing, some do.
I WROTE A BLOG ON THIS EXACT ISSUE LAST YEAR!! Link
Anyways people like day9 can always get licenses from Blizzard, which makes the streaming legal. Likewise, as a law student I actually talked to the head of Blizzard's legal department about this exact issue and he said that they wouldn't sue people who helped the game, only if they hurt. However, once someone starts making enough money, I think Blizzard and others might have more incentive to sue. On another note, the businesses of justintv or livestream and the like have to be careful not to act as secondary infringers (i.e. they must avoid vicarious liability and respond to DMCA take-down requests or they might be found liable).
On June 16 2011 06:48 SOB_Maj_Brian wrote: I WROTE A BLOG ON THIS EXACT ISSUE LAST YEAR!! Link
Anyways people like day9 can always get licenses from Blizzard, which makes the streaming legal. Likewise, as a law student I actually talked to the head of Blizzard's legal department about this exact issue and he said that they wouldn't sue people who helped the game, only if they hurt. However, once someone starts making enough money, I think Blizzard and others might have more incentive to sue. On another note, the businesses of justintv or livestream and the like have to be careful not to act as secondary infringers (i.e. they must avoid vicarious liability and respond to DMCA take-down requests or they might be found liable).
Would you like me to look into what the possible implications of this on secondary parties might be? Straight from the horse's mouth, straight to THIS horses ears, so to speak.
Oh and by the way, I didn't ask for ideas. I asked for questions, comments, concerns, which I am taking in to account or trying to respond to if possible, but cannot say will have any bearing. For that direct effect you'll have to contact your Senator. Thanks.
I have no idea why you are trying to start an argument after asking for input to gauge the way people see this law. Where did I say I wanted more rewriting laws? I said throw out what is on the books now and start over for any law that is outdated by technology. I said adding to existing laws and slightly rewording them is what I do not want. Constant retrofitting only goes so far before it is time for a replacement. We are in the midst of a transitional period in the world. We had the stone age and the bronze age etc. Society is evolving again and the politicians and corporations are afraid of change since they are in fine shape with the status quo. The government can keep trying to make things work like they always have but evolution happens on its own, no law can stop it, only slow it down. I would like to see things accelerated so that by the end of my lifetime maybe I will see the beginnings in the next way that mankind lives. If politicians don't get paid to make laws, what are lobbyists? Why do so many politicians get money from them and then vote in agreement with the lobbyist that just paid them? Is it just coincidence? Accusing me of having a closed mind is very confusing. I am presenting a new idea, err comment, to you and it scares you so you are shutting down and resorting to belittling the person you are debating with instead of using logic and reasoning. [edit] I guess I will say I am presenting a new comment to you if you don't like the word idea.[/edit]
On June 16 2011 06:17 orn wrote: Blizzard developers seemed to really like and support people like Day[9], so I wouldn't be too worried about Starcraft, unless those executives at Activision are actual cunts about it. I dunno, I don't think sueing people that stream games would be that gainful, for money or whatever reason.
Bobby Kotick is a money grubbing cunt, and he is the CEO of Activision. So I could see Kotick's cunty ways becoming a problem if this law gets enforced on this front(something like requiring people to pay for a license to stream copyrighted content like SC).
It would absolutely kill streaming though to only a few select people who could get that license and still make a profit. Although I doubt they would really care about streaming being hurt badly. I'm sure all Activision cares about is units sold, not esports, and ways to increase units sold.
On June 16 2011 06:17 orn wrote: Blizzard developers seemed to really like and support people like Day[9], so I wouldn't be too worried about Starcraft, unless those executives at Activision are actual cunts about it. I dunno, I don't think sueing people that stream games would be that gainful, for money or whatever reason.
Bobby Kotick is a money grubbing cunt, and he is the CEO of Activision. So I could see Kotick's cunty ways becoming a problem if this law gets enforced on this front(something like requiring people to pay for a license to stream copyrighted content like SC).
It would absolutely kill streaming though to only a few select people who could get that license and still make a profit. Although I doubt they would really care about streaming being hurt badly. I'm sure all Activision cares about is units sold, not esports, and ways to increase units sold.
Wouldn't put it beyond Activision.
I would feel dustin browder and all current blizz staff would have a major problem with this would would most likely cause a huge backlash by blizz staff against activision.
I don't see this happening at all. I relate this issue to youtube. If one posts something illegal that goes against copyright. Then the company has more than enough motive to shut it down. Most companies do not care though and do not worry about something so small as a youtube video.
Hmm. I don't think the issue is so much about Blizzard cracking down on streamers. It's about ASCAP and BMI.
By analogy, you are not legally allowed to play a cover song of a band that is registered with ASCAP and BMI unless the establishment where you are performing has paid a fee to ASCAP and/or BMI for the rights to play their music.
ASCAP and BMI police this practice by sending representatives to coffee houses and bars to warn them that they cannot play music or allow performers to cover music that is owned by ASCAP and BMI. As far as I know, the of streaming music is already subject to similar laws. Most SC2 streamers aren't famous enough to garner the policing attention of ASCAP and BMI. However, they could theoretically pressure Justin.TV to pressure or police its users.
Day[9] is already keenly aware of this issue as he has made a point out of playing music to which he has been granted the right (by the performer). This is smart on his part, because he is likely large enough to be made an example of by ASCAP or BMI in the form of a fat fine.
tl;dr As far as I know, streaming copyrighted music is already illegal. From the sound of this, the law is simply being clarified. While small-time streamers likely won't get fined for streaming copyrighted music, the sites that host video game streams just might be bullied by ASCAP and BMI into policing the streaming of copyrighted music.
They will only chase those whom use copyright content to profit from it. And only if they are within the US. The companies that enforce the copyrights need to make money also to pay for their gangs of lawyers, so they do as any company does, take the easiest road to get the cheddar. This means they will chase the simplest cases to prove illegal profiting off copyright infringement. Cases of indirect profiting are not easy to prove and will get the bullying and threats but no legal action cause there is no money to be made in just government fines for them. They need to prove the profits made off the copyright material and then get the court to enforce restitution of those profits.
If you're just streaming a game and also listening to your playlist they won't have evidence to prosecute you for monetary loss via infringement and just ignore you and chase the organizations profiting off streaming live PPV events and such.
Being a US citizen shit like this makes me so frustrated because more money is now going to dumb ass government departments that are a joke and a waste of tax money. It's not enough that we bail out every bank on the planet and finance wars all over the place but now we push more money to stop something that isn't even harming anyone's physical well being and its only for monetary reasons. I would be fine with this as long as those industries that make the audio and video stuff were the ones paying for this enforcement.
But hey why not spend hundreds of millions of average everyday taxed workers cash to put them in jail or fine them for using audio and visuals as they wish on there own computers. If we weren't involved in a war on everything on the face of the earth then I wouldn't have a problem with this kind of junk. I love how people say were land of the free but yet were enforced in every way imaginable and have our money wasted by our politicians. (Sorry so harsh)
I think some people here are being a little ridiculous. I mean corporation's have rights too. Hollywood spends a lot of money making quality entertainment. They need revenue. If this law starts to clamp down on the illegal streaming of entertainment, such as tv shows, then I think its a good thing. If we do not make the business of producing entertainment profitable, then their wont be a business.
On June 16 2011 10:01 cfoy3 wrote: I think some people here are being a little ridiculous. I mean corporation's have rights too. Hollywood spends a lot of money making quality entertainment. They need revenue. If this law starts to clamp down on the illegal streaming of entertainment, such as tv shows, then I think its a good thing. If we do not make the business of producing entertainment profitable, then their wont be a business.
Or companies could try doing something like changing their business model to include online streaming, like netflix and nbc. I hope to god every day that cable networks go out of business so maybe I can just pay for tv that I want online instead of their entire shitty network.
If we do not make their business profitable, then they will change their business. Which is a good thing. Amazing, even.
So does that mean I have to go to bars or eateries to watch my football games when the NFL season kicks in again rather than my computer with some home-cooked meals?
Intellectual property is cancer to society. It creates scarcity and conflict where none is necessary. Media can be peacefully and globally shared without anyone pointing a gun toward someone else. It is purely barbaric to punish people for using content that takes nothing away from anyone else.
On June 16 2011 10:01 cfoy3 wrote: I think some people here are being a little ridiculous. I mean corporation's have rights too. Hollywood spends a lot of money making quality entertainment. They need revenue. If this law starts to clamp down on the illegal streaming of entertainment, such as tv shows, then I think its a good thing. If we do not make the business of producing entertainment profitable, then their wont be a business.
No, you dont understand. The artificial scarcity is twhat is ridiculous. It is purely evil, due to enforcement of violence over rights that no one need have.
They do not deserve to profit off of something that can be so easily shared. The Internet is a resource and this limits that resource. Why should a minority profit from it currency wise when the whole world could be enriched by it? Individual greed sabotages mankind as a whole. I hate a world in which sharing is considered wrong. The whole reason theft is illegal is because it removes an item from the person who worked to acquire it. This lets everyone have an item someone worked to acquire. Imagine being able to have one person work, keep his original, and share his creation with the world. This law is a pure act of greed.
On June 16 2011 10:21 Nothing-to-No-One wrote: Why should a minority profit from it currency wise when the whole world could be enriched by it?
Don't you realize that if a minority couldn't profit from it then it wouldn't exist in the first place and thus the world wouldn't be enriched by it anyway?
Don't you realize that if a minority couldn't profit from it then it wouldn't exist in the first place and thus the world wouldn't be enriched by it anyway?
Since when was the speed of sound $19.99? There is no equation that relates the physical being of sound waves to what is charged for them. You cannot say what would motivate a person in such a way. The fact that there is a long list of artists who post their music for free on line is the only argument I need against you. Digital music is no hard product and should not be sold as such. What if God started charging for births(clearly to religious people). What if parents charged their children for limbs as clearly they're the ones who gave them to their child. Just because someone can make money off of making sharing wrong doesn't mean you should.
On June 16 2011 10:10 xarthaz wrote: Intellectual property is cancer to society. It creates scarcity and conflict where none is necessary. Media can be peacefully and globally shared without anyone pointing a gun toward someone else. It is purely barbaric to punish people for using content that takes nothing away from anyone else.
On June 16 2011 10:01 cfoy3 wrote: I think some people here are being a little ridiculous. I mean corporation's have rights too. Hollywood spends a lot of money making quality entertainment. They need revenue. If this law starts to clamp down on the illegal streaming of entertainment, such as tv shows, then I think its a good thing. If we do not make the business of producing entertainment profitable, then their wont be a business.
No, you dont understand. The artificial scarcity is twhat is ridiculous. It is purely evil, due to enforcement of violence over rights that no one need have.
You know theres easier way to let people know youre a moron.
People who have issues with IP are either children, have the mental capacity of children, or never able to grasp the idea of actually creating somethign for profit. Some of us worked hard not to be minimum wage fry makers like you.
People who have issues with IP are either children, have the mental capacity of children, or never able to grasp the idea of actually creating somethign for profit. Some of us worked hard not to be minimum wage fry makers like you.
You are raised in a society that has such a firm belief of monetary value you can't imagine any other way of living. You are narrow minded and theres no reason to insult the children.
ALSO.....music (rarely)makes money not food water shelter or safety.....
On June 16 2011 10:10 xarthaz wrote: Intellectual property is cancer to society. It creates scarcity and conflict where none is necessary. Media can be peacefully and globally shared without anyone pointing a gun toward someone else. It is purely barbaric to punish people for using content that takes nothing away from anyone else.
On June 16 2011 10:01 cfoy3 wrote: I think some people here are being a little ridiculous. I mean corporation's have rights too. Hollywood spends a lot of money making quality entertainment. They need revenue. If this law starts to clamp down on the illegal streaming of entertainment, such as tv shows, then I think its a good thing. If we do not make the business of producing entertainment profitable, then their wont be a business.
No, you dont understand. The artificial scarcity is twhat is ridiculous. It is purely evil, due to enforcement of violence over rights that no one need have.
You know theres easier way to let people know youre a moron.
People who have issues with IP are either children, have the mental capacity of children, or never able to grasp the idea of actually creating somethign for profit. Some of us worked hard not to be minimum wage fry makers like you.
whoa there put down the copy of ayn rand, step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath. isn't oxygen calming?
Don't you realize that if a minority couldn't profit from it then it wouldn't exist in the first place and thus the world wouldn't be enriched by it anyway?
Since when was the speed of sound $19.99? There is no equation that relates the physical being of sound waves to what is charged for them. You cannot say what would motivate a person in such a way. The fact that there is a long list of artists who post their music for free on line is the only argument I need against you. Digital music is no hard product and should not be sold as such. What if God started charging for births(clearly to religious people). What if parents charged their children for limbs as clearly they're the ones who gave them to their child. Just because someone can make money off of making sharing wrong doesn't mean you should.
If you don't think that copyright infringement stifles creativity and innovation then you are just wrong. Do you think Hollywood is going to spend $300 million to make a movie that they lose money on?
On June 16 2011 10:10 xarthaz wrote: Intellectual property is cancer to society. It creates scarcity and conflict where none is necessary. Media can be peacefully and globally shared without anyone pointing a gun toward someone else. It is purely barbaric to punish people for using content that takes nothing away from anyone else.
On June 16 2011 10:01 cfoy3 wrote: I think some people here are being a little ridiculous. I mean corporation's have rights too. Hollywood spends a lot of money making quality entertainment. They need revenue. If this law starts to clamp down on the illegal streaming of entertainment, such as tv shows, then I think its a good thing. If we do not make the business of producing entertainment profitable, then their wont be a business.
No, you dont understand. The artificial scarcity is twhat is ridiculous. It is purely evil, due to enforcement of violence over rights that no one need have.
You know theres easier way to let people know youre a moron.
People who have issues with IP are either children, have the mental capacity of children, or never able to grasp the idea of actually creating somethign for profit. Some of us worked hard not to be minimum wage fry makers like you.
whoa there put down the copy of ayn rand, step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath. isn't oxygen calming?
I er, uh, you know what you obviously didn't read her work so I'm not going to explain why you fail at trying to use that joke.
Ayn Rand was also and idiot.
IP laws are a requirement of a capitalist society regardless, you can't have a functional western marketplace without them. I mean sure we can totally go back several thousand years to an agrarian city state society but I like how it is now.
If you don't think that copyright infringement stifles creativity and innovation then you are just wrong. Do you think Hollywood is going to spend $300 million to make a movie that they lose money on?
Since when the hell was Hollywood the only ones who made movies? And your missing my point. I am arguing that the sale of a file that can be copied with much ease is a largely less legitimate business then the sale of a theater ticket.
On June 16 2011 10:21 Nothing-to-No-One wrote: They do not deserve to profit off of something that can be so easily shared. The Internet is a resource and this limits that resource. Why should a minority profit from it currency wise when the whole world could be enriched by it? Individual greed sabotages mankind as a whole. I hate a world in which sharing is considered wrong. The whole reason theft is illegal is because it removes an item from the person who worked to acquire it. This lets everyone have an item someone worked to acquire. Imagine being able to have one person work, keep his original, and share his creation with the world. This law is a pure act of greed.
What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.
An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.
The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal.
On June 16 2011 10:21 Nothing-to-No-One wrote: They do not deserve to profit off of something that can be so easily shared. The Internet is a resource and this limits that resource. Why should a minority profit from it currency wise when the whole world could be enriched by it? Individual greed sabotages mankind as a whole. I hate a world in which sharing is considered wrong. The whole reason theft is illegal is because it removes an item from the person who worked to acquire it. This lets everyone have an item someone worked to acquire. Imagine being able to have one person work, keep his original, and share his creation with the world. This law is a pure act of greed.
What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.
An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.
The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal.
A-La the prime functions of a governnment to define liberties, protect property, and secure safety for its citizens. You know john locke, this wasnt a hard concept to grasp hundreds of years ago.
If history has taught us anything the preservation of original thought is an important one, to not protect it stifles creativity by removing the most desireable of motivations for it. Without it you end up a defunct country with a meme attached to it.
An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.
So shouldn't whoever made the camera's a movie was filmed with get royalties for enabling a creation to exist. Go back through history and we all owe everything we have to cumulative knowledge and culture. This knowledge and culture snowballed through the generations. Why should we hinder this snowball by giving the exclusive rights of an object to someone? It is for the good of mankind that whenever something can easily be shared that it is. This will advance us as a race and not just pay someone.
If you don't think that copyright infringement stifles creativity and innovation then you are just wrong. Do you think Hollywood is going to spend $300 million to make a movie that they lose money on?
Since when the hell was Hollywood the only ones who made movies? And your missing my point. I am arguing that the sale of a file that can be copied with much ease is a largely less legitimate business then the sale of a theater ticket.
Do you think game companies would continue making games if they simply gave it away for free? Do you think software companies will continue producing software if its for free? These are items that are simply files which you can easy copy and distribute.
Or companies could try doing something like changing their business model to include online streaming, like netflix and nbc. I hope to god every day that cable networks go out of business so maybe I can just pay for tv that I want online instead of their entire shitty network.
If we do not make their business profitable, then they will change their business. Which is a good thing. Amazing, even.
I do agree with you. They should do all those things and more, but what they should do is not at issue. What is at issue is whether what we are doing, the streaming of their intellectually profitable is right. Even though I like to stream, I have to admit that its morally wrong. If I want to watch their property I should pay for it.Again, I think you are right they should change their bussiness model, but not based on the fact that we the people steal their property.
On June 16 2011 10:21 Nothing-to-No-One wrote: Why should a minority profit from it currency wise when the whole world could be enriched by it?
Don't you realize that if a minority couldn't profit from it then it wouldn't exist in the first place and thus the world wouldn't be enriched by it anyway?
Einstein did not study physics for a profit. The Wright Brothers did not invent flight to make money from it. The best inventions/innovations in the world today were not spawned by desire to make money. Starting to get into why capitalism is not the most efficient way to share resources and provide for the most people possible. The artists don't actually make the amount they should because it gets diluted through an unnecessary corporate structure with too many people being bosses and not enough providing a service or creating a good. Basically copyrights only exist as a way of censoring what thoughts make it to public back when literacy became more common. They claim it is about money but the people saying that have plenty. It is about control and power. They need to stop instituting bandwidth caps and trying to pass legislation to keep internet streaming lower percentage of bandwidth usage. Streaming video is currently 20% of the world's bandwidth. And during peak times in the US it can get much higher. They can't figure out a way to make streaming profitable compared to the companies and individuals who already are. They are scared that their companies will die. If companies are not allowed to go by the waste-side when they are no longer useful/profitable then you take away the very basis of capitalism(free market) but keep the bad side effects or real world capitalism like the only motivation being money instead of improving society in some way. These ever increasing copyright laws are similar to not allowing the starving people in the world eat because they don't have money. There is no food shortage, there is a money shortage in Africa. If they had money, they would not be starving. There is plenty of extra in the first world but it costs money. You cannot listen to that song or hear that speech or watch that sport because you don't have enough money even though it costs almost nothing to stream it and they can get ad revenue still. Think about it, who steals a bunch of music or food if they have the money to pay for it to begin with? Of course people would rather be able to pay but it is not always possible. The problem being that even though the ability, technology, and manpower exist, if the money isn't there neither is whatever could have been. An example of this would be the lack of true high speed fiber optics throughout the US. No reason it isn't there yet other than the money for it isn't there. Isolated areas are still choosing satellite or dial up because they do not represent a big enough customer base to justify allowing them access to the internet. There is still cable tv in a lot of these areas here in Kansas, but the cable companies don't offer internet, only tv. At what point do they really need more money and at what point can we learn to share? Information should be free. We should stop holding back our own development because of a lack of money, which was created to make trade easier, it is now not necessary and only creates problems. On a side note, we have the technology, raw materials, and manpower to replace 50% of all jobs by computers/robots. The reason we cannot do this is because how would that 50% be able to pay for things if they have been replaced? This is why we are in the beginning of the next stage in human evolution. I can't wait until a system like the Federation of Planets is our governing body and educating the youth is a top priority.
Do you think game companies would continue making games if they simply gave it away for free? Do you think software companies will continue producing software if its for free? These are items that are simply files which you can easy copy and distribute.
Everyone will die. All the money and wealth you accumulate when you are gone won't be in your possession. Money, objects, items all go away but what sticks are the things you do that enable your fellow humans. It is selfish and goes against the best wishes of the human race to only allow people privileged enough to be born into a scenario where they can pursue a decent job access to an idea and even more so to prevent them from expanding on it. Single minded selfishness hinders world wide development.
If you don't think that copyright infringement stifles creativity and innovation then you are just wrong. Do you think Hollywood is going to spend $300 million to make a movie that they lose money on?
Since when the hell was Hollywood the only ones who made movies? And your missing my point. I am arguing that the sale of a file that can be copied with much ease is a largely less legitimate business then the sale of a theater ticket.
Do you think game companies would continue making games if they simply gave it away for free? Do you think software companies will continue producing software if its for free? These are items that are simply files which you can easy copy and distribute.
yes they will, ever heard about Canonical or Red Hat?
I am very happy to pay for a movie, as long as it doesn't have tons of blatant product placement advertising. Just like I wont pay for TV as long as it's financed by advertisment (I pay for TV "distribution").
Do you think game companies would continue making games if they simply gave it away for free? Do you think software companies will continue producing software if its for free? These are items that are simply files which you can easy copy and distribute.
Everyone will die. All the money and wealth you accumulate when you are gone won't be in your possession. Money, objects, items all go away but what sticks are the things you do that enable your fellow humans. It is selfish and goes against the best wishes of the human race to only allow people privileged enough to be born into a scenario where they can pursue a decent job access to an idea and even more so to prevent them from expanding on it. Single minded selfishness hinders world wide development.
Selfishness hinders world wide development?
Man, what a claim! So every major innovation or invention has been created for altruistic purposes, and not for at least some aspect of personal gain?
If you don't think that copyright infringement stifles creativity and innovation then you are just wrong. Do you think Hollywood is going to spend $300 million to make a movie that they lose money on?
Since when the hell was Hollywood the only ones who made movies? And your missing my point. I am arguing that the sale of a file that can be copied with much ease is a largely less legitimate business then the sale of a theater ticket.
I know what your point is. There is no reason for me to argue with your point because we probably have a fundamental difference of opinion that we will never agree on. You say it's not a legitimate business and I say that it is, where can we go from there? Not very far.
So back to creativity and innovation. I am aware that Hollywood is not the only place that makes movies. Are you saying that it's okay if Hollywood is ruined because other places will make films on the cheap?
Man, what a claim! So every major innovation or invention has been created for altruistic purposes, and not for at least some aspect of personal gain?
I said hinders not prevents. Eventually that person will die and he will lose royalties to his product but this is a lifetime. Snowball these lifetimes and it is a very large amount of hindrance. Hes throwing steel mesh into the gears of development. You are raised in a capitalistic society, consider the phrase: "How do you look outside of what is to you everything?" -Stephen Colbert
So back to creativity and innovation. I am aware that Hollywood is not the only place that makes movies. Are you saying that it's okay if Hollywood is ruined because other places will make films on the cheap?
Actually it would put more emphasis on the quality and not who made them so that would be a good thing, less movies like the Stars Wars 1 2 3.... Just because someone spends money to make something does not mean it is quality
On June 16 2011 10:21 Nothing-to-No-One wrote: Why should a minority profit from it currency wise when the whole world could be enriched by it?
Don't you realize that if a minority couldn't profit from it then it wouldn't exist in the first place and thus the world wouldn't be enriched by it anyway?
Einstein did not study physics for a profit. The Wright Brothers did not invent flight to make money from it. The best inventions/innovations in the world today were not spawned by desire to make money. Starting to get into why capitalism is not the most efficient way to share resources and provide for the most people possible. The artists don't actually make the amount they should because it gets diluted through an unnecessary corporate structure with too many people being bosses and not enough providing a service or creating a good. Basically copyrights only exist as a way of censoring what thoughts make it to public back when literacy became more common. They claim it is about money but the people saying that have plenty. It is about control and power. They need to stop instituting bandwidth caps and trying to pass legislation to keep internet streaming lower percentage of bandwidth usage. Streaming video is currently 20% of the world's bandwidth. And during peak times in the US it can get much higher. They can't figure out a way to make streaming profitable compared to the companies and individuals who already are. They are scared that their companies will die. If companies are not allowed to go by the waste-side when they are no longer useful/profitable then you take away the very basis of capitalism(free market) but keep the bad side effects or real world capitalism like the only motivation being money instead of improving society in some way. These ever increasing copyright laws are similar to not allowing the starving people in the world eat because they don't have money. There is no food shortage, there is a money shortage in Africa. If they had money, they would not be starving. There is plenty of extra in the first world but it costs money. You cannot listen to that song or hear that speech or watch that sport because you don't have enough money even though it costs almost nothing to stream it and they can get ad revenue still. Think about it, who steals a bunch of music or food if they have the money to pay for it to begin with? Of course people would rather be able to pay but it is not always possible. The problem being that even though the ability, technology, and manpower exist, if the money isn't there neither is whatever could have been. An example of this would be the lack of true high speed fiber optics throughout the US. No reason it isn't there yet other than the money for it isn't there. Isolated areas are still choosing satellite or dial up because they do not represent a big enough customer base to justify allowing them access to the internet. There is still cable tv in a lot of these areas here in Kansas, but the cable companies don't offer internet, only tv. At what point do they really need more money and at what point can we learn to share? Information should be free. We should stop holding back our own development because of a lack of money, which was created to make trade easier, it is now not necessary and only creates problems. On a side note, we have the technology, raw materials, and manpower to replace 50% of all jobs by computers/robots. The reason we cannot do this is because how would that 50% be able to pay for things if they have been replaced? This is why we are in the beginning of the next stage in human evolution. I can't wait until a system like the Federation of Planets is our governing body and educating the youth is a top priority.
Wall of text crits you 1 brajillion doing terrible terrible damage
Argument fails in first sentence, would A, any one like to guess what einsteins job was? and B, who wants to make a guess what the wright brothers did with their inventions?
Answers! A. Einstein was paid as a physhics teacher/research throughout his life he just happened to be smart enoguh to work in a field he had a passion for.
B. the wright brothers continually marketed and and tweaked their flying invention with government militaries like the united states.
Man, what a claim! So every major innovation or invention has been created for altruistic purposes, and not for at least some aspect of personal gain?
I said hinders not prevents. Eventually that person will die and he will lose royalties to his product but this is a lifetime. Snowball these lifetimes and it is a very large amount of hindrance. Hes throwing steel mesh into the gears of development. You are raised in a capitalistic society, consider the phrase: "How do you look outside of what is to you everything?" -Stephen Colbert
Any evidence to support your claims?
I could just as easily say selfish desires further the cause of technological innovations far more than altruistic purposes. Space race? Selfish interest drove that and all subsequent developments, far more effectively than if there had not been a pressing selfish desire to develop such inventions.
Neither one of them was motivated by money to invent. They had the inspiration in them already. If I enjoy writing computer programs and happen to get a job writing computer programs, the reason I am doing it is not the fact I am getting paid. The payment only allows me to function and stay alive.
Let us talk about selfishness then. In North Korea the government is selfish when considering the quality of life for Kim Jong il and the average citizens quality of life. Wouldn't you say if Kim Jong shared more like computers, Internet, and free speech he would enable his citizens to do more then be oppressed and maybe create intuitive works other then synchronized dancing?
On June 16 2011 10:10 xarthaz wrote: Intellectual property is cancer to society. It creates scarcity and conflict where none is necessary. Media can be peacefully and globally shared without anyone pointing a gun toward someone else. It is purely barbaric to punish people for using content that takes nothing away from anyone else.
On June 16 2011 10:01 cfoy3 wrote: I think some people here are being a little ridiculous. I mean corporation's have rights too. Hollywood spends a lot of money making quality entertainment. They need revenue. If this law starts to clamp down on the illegal streaming of entertainment, such as tv shows, then I think its a good thing. If we do not make the business of producing entertainment profitable, then their wont be a business.
No, you dont understand. The artificial scarcity is twhat is ridiculous. It is purely evil, due to enforcement of violence over rights that no one need have.
You know theres easier way to let people know youre a moron.
People who have issues with IP are either children, have the mental capacity of children, or never able to grasp the idea of actually creating somethign for profit. Some of us worked hard not to be minimum wage fry makers like you.
the problem isnt profit. it is enforcement of violence for the purposes of creating scarcity of goods that can be freely enjoyed by everyone
If you don't think that copyright infringement stifles creativity and innovation then you are just wrong. Do you think Hollywood is going to spend $300 million to make a movie that they lose money on?
Since when the hell was Hollywood the only ones who made movies? And your missing my point. I am arguing that the sale of a file that can be copied with much ease is a largely less legitimate business then the sale of a theater ticket.
I know what your point is. There is no reason for me to argue with your point because we probably have a fundamental difference of opinion that we will never agree on. You say it's not a legitimate business and I say that it is, where can we go from there? Not very far.
So back to creativity and innovation. I am aware that Hollywood is not the only place that makes movies. Are you saying that it's okay if Hollywood is ruined because other places will make films on the cheap?
Like your just thinking about yourself man. Your like the freaking bodyguards at the Phish concert who had nothing on their mind but messing with my vibe. Im just there to soak in the love like everyone else, why do I need a ticket? You should be paying me for adding to the merryness of the moment. You cant put a price on things like sound waves or water or love, that's bogus man. When my co-op mate Aurora Ray buys a delicious box of Kashi Go Lean Crunch (not pre-processed ultrapastuerized polyeurothanized crap from earth fascists like Kelloggs) can you imagine if he/she charged me for each delicious cluster? Thatd be bogus man. The foods from the Earth and no one owns Mother Earth. Next thing you know people will start charging for stars or to use the growlights at the college's nature center. Its corporatists like you that are raping Mother Earth of good times but i got news for you its time for us to take back the night. Well not the night cause its totally bumming when the suns not out but i got a lot of stress and probably wont be up till 1 or 4pm so then watch out then cause free dom is coming to every1.
The idea of private propery is one of the core values of Western Societies. Many of you have made compelling arguments for why we should do away with it, however that is not what I feel should be debated right now. You are arguing to radically restructure our society, this bill is about a single issue, whether watching someones IP is illegal withing our society. The answer is yes. You could argue that the society is wrong, and the starting philosospies are incorrect-the right to property-but that does not apply to this one issue. If you want the law repealed you must argue against it within our current society. P.S.I do like The Next Generation and I do hope one day that humanity does develop such a system. However, I feel such a system will only arise once their is a massive over abundance in all resources-energy,food and space. Once we have a situation where no one lacks, then such a system may develop. However, current practical necessitous, I feel , prevents such a system from developing.
On June 16 2011 11:32 KomradeKevin wrote: Neither one of them was motivated by money to invent. They had the inspiration in them already. If I enjoy writing computer programs and happen to get a job writing computer programs, the reason I am doing it is not the fact I am getting paid. The payment only allows me to function and stay alive.
Einstein is maybe the better of the two to argue with but it was very much part of his job to do science and come up with these things, and he certainly liked getting paid. His type of work is considerably harder to monetize since hes not actually creating anything just explaining, nonetheless he never turned down the money (and prize money which he did a lot fo his work for).
The wright brothers are a terrible argument for you to make, they both talked exensively how the printing company was there to pay the bills while they tried to sell their many inventions. They liked it but they damn well wanted to be paid for their ideas.
The better way of looking at it is this. You got that job writing code because A, you like money(you know you need it to eat and live) and B you like programming. You would be pissed if some one else was taking your code work and turning it in to get paid while you got paid nothing for working all week.
On June 16 2011 10:10 xarthaz wrote: Intellectual property is cancer to society. It creates scarcity and conflict where none is necessary. Media can be peacefully and globally shared without anyone pointing a gun toward someone else. It is purely barbaric to punish people for using content that takes nothing away from anyone else.
On June 16 2011 10:01 cfoy3 wrote: I think some people here are being a little ridiculous. I mean corporation's have rights too. Hollywood spends a lot of money making quality entertainment. They need revenue. If this law starts to clamp down on the illegal streaming of entertainment, such as tv shows, then I think its a good thing. If we do not make the business of producing entertainment profitable, then their wont be a business.
No, you dont understand. The artificial scarcity is twhat is ridiculous. It is purely evil, due to enforcement of violence over rights that no one need have.
You know theres easier way to let people know youre a moron.
People who have issues with IP are either children, have the mental capacity of children, or never able to grasp the idea of actually creating somethign for profit. Some of us worked hard not to be minimum wage fry makers like you.
whoa there put down the copy of ayn rand, step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath. isn't oxygen calming?
I er, uh, you know what you obviously didn't read her work so I'm not going to explain why you fail at trying to use that joke.
Ayn Rand was also and idiot.
IP laws are a requirement of a capitalist society regardless, you can't have a functional western marketplace without them. I mean sure we can totally go back several thousand years to an agrarian city state society but I like how it is now.
a lot of wealth has been created in eastern european and china due to lack of IP enforcement.
On June 16 2011 11:34 Nothing-to-No-One wrote: Let us talk about selfishness then. In North Korea the government is selfish when considering the quality of life for Kim Jong il and the average citizens quality of life. Wouldn't you say if Kim Jong shared more like computers, Internet, and free speech he would enable his citizens to do more then be oppressed and maybe create intuitive works other then synchronized dancing?
Sure, but that's not what we are talking about.
You are ignoring the point brought up before by other posters (repeatedly) which is that game companies wouldn't make games if they didn't make money. Private medial research involving massive expenditure wouldn't occur if profit incentives didn't exist. The list goes on.
If you are trying to say selfishness only inhibits these innovations, we can just as easily say it was that selfishness that allowed these inventions to occur in the first place, and without selfishness, such innovations would be considerably more rudimentary at best.
Does the enforcement of copyright laws stifle creativity? Who knows? Any proof? Any examples? Give me an example of medical science where copyright laws have a proven hindering effect on further innovation, because we could easily list a hundred other examples were copyright laws could be argued to have the opposite effect (to reward R&D efforts by corporations by ensuring profits over their creation)
This entire thread is just full of broad assumptions and statements with little to no examples, reliable evidence, or research, and you can't claim these great universal truths without evidence to back them up.
If you don't think that copyright infringement stifles creativity and innovation then you are just wrong. Do you think Hollywood is going to spend $300 million to make a movie that they lose money on?
Since when the hell was Hollywood the only ones who made movies? And your missing my point. I am arguing that the sale of a file that can be copied with much ease is a largely less legitimate business then the sale of a theater ticket.
I know what your point is. There is no reason for me to argue with your point because we probably have a fundamental difference of opinion that we will never agree on. You say it's not a legitimate business and I say that it is, where can we go from there? Not very far.
So back to creativity and innovation. I am aware that Hollywood is not the only place that makes movies. Are you saying that it's okay if Hollywood is ruined because other places will make films on the cheap?
Like your just thinking about yourself man. Your like the freaking bodyguards at the Phish concert who had nothing on their mind but messing with my vibe. Im just there to soak in the love like everyone else, why do I need a ticket? You should be paying me for adding to the merryness of the moment. You cant put a price on things like sound waves or water or love, that's bogus man. When my co-op mate Aurora Ray buys a delicious box of Kashi Go Lean Crunch (not pre-processed ultrapastuerized polyeurothanized crap from earth fascists like Kelloggs) can you imagine if he/she charged me for each delicious cluster? Thatd be bogus man. The foods from the Earth and no one owns Mother Earth. Next thing you know people will start charging for stars or to use the growlights at the college's nature center. Its corporatists like you that are raping Mother Earth of good times but i got news for you its time for us to take back the night. Well not the night cause its totally bumming when the suns not out but i got a lot of stress and probably wont be up till 1 or 4pm so then watch out then cause free dom is coming to every1.
Omg that was super funny but I totally agree, people try to "sell" things that are never theirs to begin with and I don't think its right but what can we do but just wait for some global revolution? Fight the power! :D
You are ignoring the point brought up before by other posters (repeatedly) which is that game companies wouldn't make games if they didn't make money. Private medial research involving massive expenditure wouldn't occur if profit incentives didn't exist. The list goes on.
If you are trying to say selfishness only inhibits these innovations, we can just as easily say it was that selfishness that allowed these inventions to occur in the first place, and without selfishness, such innovations would be considerably more rudimentary at best.
Does the enforcement of copyright laws stifle creativity? Who knows? Any proof? Any examples? Give me an example of medical science where copyright laws have a proven hindering effect on further innovation, because we could easily list a hundred other examples were copyright laws could be argued to have the opposite effect (to reward R&D efforts by corporations by ensuring profits over their creation)
Let's talk about the medical industry. Now let's say your a poor Nigerian boy outside of the reach of missionaries and charities. One day you get a flu badly and because you can't pay a hospital fee to have yourself treated you die. Sound fair? Those game companies are lacking passion, incentive corresponding to their career, aspiration, and motivation in the first place if the only incentive is money. They will do what the have to to get a paycheck and sure some people will end up passionate and this is where good games come from. However there is a graveyard of video games that are crappy because there was no passion behind them and these are the ones made by people who live only for the paycheck. Related is the fact that a lot of top game producers have unpaid overtime. To stay in that job would mean the money is not the issue and it's the game that is the issue.
What is the reason of property? Why should property rights be enforced, at all? This is the fallacy that makes people believe in IP. Regular property has a serious reason for its enforcement - it is the only nonviolent way of using it, as property is exclusive in its use.
Intellectual property however does not need to be enforced to be used in non violent manner - everyone can use it together without excluding each other. As such, the entire basis of justification of IP is eliminated, and the big scam of intellectual property is proven.
On June 16 2011 11:41 cfoy3 wrote: The idea of private propery is one of the core values of Western Societies. Many of you have made compelling arguments for why we should do away with it, however that is not what I feel should be debated right now. You are arguing to radically restructure our society, this bill is about a single issue, whether watching someones IP is illegal withing our society. The answer is yes. You could argue that the society is wrong, and the starting philosospies are incorrect-the right to property-but that does not apply to this one issue. If you want the law repealed you must argue against it within our current society. P.S.I do like The Next Generation and I do hope one day that humanity does develop such a system. However, I feel such a system will only arise once their is a massive over abundance in all resources-energy,food and space. Once we have a situation where no one lacks, then such a system may develop. However, current practical necessitous, I feel , prevents such a system from developing.
You are ignoring the point brought up before by other posters (repeatedly) which is that game companies wouldn't make games if they didn't make money. Private medial research involving massive expenditure wouldn't occur if profit incentives didn't exist. The list goes on.
If you are trying to say selfishness only inhibits these innovations, we can just as easily say it was that selfishness that allowed these inventions to occur in the first place, and without selfishness, such innovations would be considerably more rudimentary at best.
Does the enforcement of copyright laws stifle creativity? Who knows? Any proof? Any examples? Give me an example of medical science where copyright laws have a proven hindering effect on further innovation, because we could easily list a hundred other examples were copyright laws could be argued to have the opposite effect (to reward R&D efforts by corporations by ensuring profits over their creation)
Let's talk about the medical industry. Now let's say your a poor Nigerian boy outside of the reach of missionaries and charities. One day you get a flu badly and because you can't pay a hospital fee to have yourself treated you die. Sound fair? Those game companies are lacking passion, incentive corresponding to their career, aspiration, and motivation in the first place if the only incentive is money. They will do what the have to to get a paycheck and sure some people will end up passionate and this is where good games come from. However there is a graveyard of video games that are crappy because there was no passion behind them and these are the ones made by people who live only for the paycheck. Related is the fact that a lot of top game producers have unpaid overtime. To stay in that job would mean the money is not the issue and it's the game that is the issue.
Fair? Fair? Who ever said fair? We're talking about the hindering of development based on selfish reasons, not fairness.
Moreover, who is to say the medicine the poor Nigerian boy needed for his particular strain would have even existed in the first place if a private medical corporation based out of the US, or the UK, or Germany, hadn't dropped however many millions of dollars in development costs?
Again, I can just as easily say the selfish drive for profit is what allowed such medicine to be created in the first place, let alone mass produced and perfected to the point where it can treat X disease.
On June 16 2011 11:56 xarthaz wrote: What is the reason of property? Why should property rights be enforced, at all? This is the fallacy that makes people believe in IP. Regular property has a serious reason for its enforcement - it is the only nonviolent way of using it, as property is exclusive in its use.
Intellectual property however does not need to be enforced to be used in non violent manner - everyone can use it together without excluding each other. As such, the entire basis of justification of IP is eliminated, and the big scam of intellectual property is proven.
On June 16 2011 11:41 cfoy3 wrote: The idea of private propery is one of the core values of Western Societies. Many of you have made compelling arguments for why we should do away with it, however that is not what I feel should be debated right now. You are arguing to radically restructure our society, this bill is about a single issue, whether watching someones IP is illegal withing our society. The answer is yes. You could argue that the society is wrong, and the starting philosospies are incorrect-the right to property-but that does not apply to this one issue. If you want the law repealed you must argue against it within our current society. P.S.I do like The Next Generation and I do hope one day that humanity does develop such a system. However, I feel such a system will only arise once their is a massive over abundance in all resources-energy,food and space. Once we have a situation where no one lacks, then such a system may develop. However, current practical necessitous, I feel , prevents such a system from developing.
Right.
So Blizzard, after sinking millions into the development of SC2, should let the game be downloaded for free, for everyone to use without paying a dime?
Fair? Fair? Who ever said fair? We're talking about the hindering of development based on selfish reasons, not fairness.
Alright cut the bullshit, setting a standard to receive a creation disallows all the potential in the world from being used. Since everything that is made by people right now is expanded on what our ancestors did there is a very small case for total ownership of a creation. Would you not agree that more used potential would on average yield more creations? By disallowing these unfortunate to collaborate you hinder the future generations and the current generations as they and their children will most likely be unable to contribute due to a lack of basic necessities that will be more important than creative works.
Moreover, who is to say the medicine the poor Nigerian boy needed for his particular strain would have even existed in the first place if a private medical corporation based out of the US, or the UK, or Germany, hadn't dropped however many millions of dollars in development costs?
That is a hypothetical and you cannot say if that is true or not so not really an argument as that is based on the chance that the medicine does not exist and that it has not been made yet.
Again, I can just as easily say the selfish drive for profit is what allowed such medicine to be created in the first place, let alone mass produced and perfected to the point where it can treat X disease.
Exactly, since this argument is so hypothetical and not based on any logical basis then theres no need to consider it.
To sum up, more tapped potential = more possible works to take place.
On June 16 2011 10:10 xarthaz wrote: Intellectual property is cancer to society. It creates scarcity and conflict where none is necessary. Media can be peacefully and globally shared without anyone pointing a gun toward someone else. It is purely barbaric to punish people for using content that takes nothing away from anyone else.
On June 16 2011 10:01 cfoy3 wrote: I think some people here are being a little ridiculous. I mean corporation's have rights too. Hollywood spends a lot of money making quality entertainment. They need revenue. If this law starts to clamp down on the illegal streaming of entertainment, such as tv shows, then I think its a good thing. If we do not make the business of producing entertainment profitable, then their wont be a business.
No, you dont understand. The artificial scarcity is twhat is ridiculous. It is purely evil, due to enforcement of violence over rights that no one need have.
You know theres easier way to let people know youre a moron.
People who have issues with IP are either children, have the mental capacity of children, or never able to grasp the idea of actually creating somethign for profit. Some of us worked hard not to be minimum wage fry makers like you.
whoa there put down the copy of ayn rand, step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath. isn't oxygen calming?
I er, uh, you know what you obviously didn't read her work so I'm not going to explain why you fail at trying to use that joke.
Ayn Rand was also and idiot.
IP laws are a requirement of a capitalist society regardless, you can't have a functional western marketplace without them. I mean sure we can totally go back several thousand years to an agrarian city state society but I like how it is now.
a lot of wealth has been created in eastern european and china due to lack of IP enforcement.
Dear god and exactly how much new thought is coming out of those places? The inability to recognize value in orginal thought is one of the prime reasons why china got left behind in technology for a thousand+ years. In fact they didn't even begin to catch up until recently when people were dumb enough to let them cheaply manufacture things for them, having forgotten why labor was so cheap to begin with.
China also has several other factors thats really contributing their increases in wealth beyond IP issues. Lets take eastern europe though since those places are completely devoid of the reasons why china is developing so quickly. How many people honestly think to themselves hey wouldnt it be great to live in a ex soviet buffer state with a completely assbackwards government and market structure? People arent clamoring to live in those places at all, hell most are trying to get out.
I'm also willing to bet even with the great advances in living conditions the line to move into china there is pretty short from people who already live in developped nations. I've been there its neat to see but I'll take anywhere in the states over that sillyness any day of the week.
That is a hypothetical and you cannot say if that is true or not so not really an argument as that is based on the chance that the medicine does not exist and that it has not been made yet.
The entirety of what you are saying is hypothetical.
Literally your entire viewpoint is framed in the idea that selfish enterprise inhibits progress, whereas mine is founded in clear evidence that selfish desires have, in many cases, led to great advancements in human technology
What is the reason of property? Why should property rights be enforced, at all? This is the fallacy that makes people believe in IP. Regular property has a serious reason for its enforcement - it is the only nonviolent way of using it, as property is exclusive in its use.
Intellectual property however does not need to be enforced to be used in non violent manner - everyone can use it together without excluding each other. As such, the entire basis of justification of IP is eliminated, and the big scam of intellectual property is proven.
One of the important reason for private property is scarcity. Scarcity in their not being enough. Intellectually property you are arguing does not suffer from this issue and thus should be open to everyone. You are correct that IP does not suffer from scarcity, but I argue that the developers of IP can not exist in a vacume. They need money to live and support their families. If their content they develop does not make money, then they will not be able to make sure their needs are met. That is why we have IP copyrights so that those who develop IP are rewarded.
Very sad how Nimmer, who was an authority on the matter of IP, once thought that IP does not violate the First Amendment because of its "traditional contours." These traditional contours include fair use, the idea/expression dichotomy, and reasonable term limits. Look where we are now.
Fair use is so case specific that ordinary people have no idea what they may or may not create. Furthermore, because proxies like youtube are the ones who in reality have the say in whether content stays up, companies claiming infringement have a natural advantage to someone trying to defend against that claim by arguing fair use. And this isn't even taking into account how coercive even bad claims can be.
The idea/expression dichotomy has been corroded so much that what Nimmer would have considered ideas are now regularly put in the "expression" that may be protected category by courts. And since the Sonny Bono Term Extension Act the whole idea of a term limit is a complete joke. For some strange reason (corruption) Congress seems to think that a term of protection lasting from life plus 70 years is necessary to promote the arts and sciences, when all the research shows that a term of merely 15-20 years is sufficient.
It's sad that our entire copyright system has become so unconstitutional, but the current court system can do nothing about it since under the majority's First Amendment analysis they will decide many of these cases under rational basis review, which pretty much permits anything Congress can do.
Fuck sorry for the rant but I hate how illogical and corrupt our whole copyright system is.
If you don't think that copyright infringement stifles creativity and innovation then you are just wrong. Do you think Hollywood is going to spend $300 million to make a movie that they lose money on?
Since when the hell was Hollywood the only ones who made movies? And your missing my point. I am arguing that the sale of a file that can be copied with much ease is a largely less legitimate business then the sale of a theater ticket.
I know what your point is. There is no reason for me to argue with your point because we probably have a fundamental difference of opinion that we will never agree on. You say it's not a legitimate business and I say that it is, where can we go from there? Not very far.
So back to creativity and innovation. I am aware that Hollywood is not the only place that makes movies. Are you saying that it's okay if Hollywood is ruined because other places will make films on the cheap?
Like your just thinking about yourself man. Your like the freaking bodyguards at the Phish concert who had nothing on their mind but messing with my vibe. Im just there to soak in the love like everyone else, why do I need a ticket? You should be paying me for adding to the merryness of the moment. You cant put a price on things like sound waves or water or love, that's bogus man. When my co-op mate Aurora Ray buys a delicious box of Kashi Go Lean Crunch (not pre-processed ultrapastuerized polyeurothanized crap from earth fascists like Kelloggs) can you imagine if he/she charged me for each delicious cluster? Thatd be bogus man. The foods from the Earth and no one owns Mother Earth. Next thing you know people will start charging for stars or to use the growlights at the college's nature center. Its corporatists like you that are raping Mother Earth of good times but i got news for you its time for us to take back the night. Well not the night cause its totally bumming when the suns not out but i got a lot of stress and probably wont be up till 1 or 4pm so then watch out then cause free dom is coming to every1.
LOL That was funny but now I am reminded that those people exist
I think the copyright discussion while interesting and fairly related has somewhat distracted from what this article/legislation is most directly tied to, which is streaming of copyrighted content.
If someone is sitting around streaming South Park episodes all day, no streaming site is going to let the advertise, or share ad revenues they generate. I personally don't care for people that do this, and really don't understand the thought process that causes them to do it. Probably either some sense of popularity seeing several hundred people watching 'them stream' who are really just watching South Park, maybe some sense of providing a service to the community at large.
I think that if anything, this is the most 'malicious' form of streaming content that is most directly capable of hurting a pre-existing revenue system. Be it taking viewers away from the show itself, or ads from the content owners site or stream, this is the most obviously and directly problematic form of infringement, and I have a hard time imagining it being worth wiretaps and FBI crackdowns. If copyright holders care, they should hold stream websites responsible for the content of their sites, and stream websites can then police and shutdown or penalize streamers, or give their information over to ISPs to take appropriate action.
The other thing, which I don't think actually suffers from this is music content being used in conjunction with fair use or personal content, be it a SC2 player streaming his ladder games while listening to (and in many setups therefor streaming) the music they are listening to. This does not in any way hurt the music industry. If anything, people in chat more often ask what a song is so that they can acquire it (again, although there are thousands of ways for people to get the media without paying or via other illegal means, it is meaningless for this discussion unless you hope to stop all of them by cracking down on streaming media.)
To me, this is very troublesome to think about, as esports and streaming content are expanded upon, tons of people are trying to make a name for themselves as gamers or casters etc. and having legislation like this looming overhead, where someone has to fear law enforcement if they accidentally show their desktop and it has a copyrighted image on it, or the wrong logo, or they have to be talking to their viewers nonstop, or have a silent stream and not listen to music etc. It just seems very heavy handed to even suggest when if anything, it helps sell music. I'd love to see a metric somewhere of how many copies of songs or albums are sold after being heard on Day[9]'s stream in the pre-show.
At the end of the day, unless you destroy the internet, people will illegally obtain free copies of things. Even if you do that, you cannot stop someone from burning a copy of something and mailing it, or handing it off to someone else. That is an unavoidable truth about the world since the dawn of the information age. If companies/corporations really want to make the best of it, they need to help create the means by which they can still profit from creating their content, and I don't think that the steps outlined in the article are going to help that. The fear of reprimand is important to keep the volume of piracy down a little bit, but I think the South Park episode had it right in a lot of ways about how it is hard to feel sorry for people who are still living extremely lavish lives.
You can only say that piracy hurts innovation/creativity if you believe that profit is the only thing that drives innovation/creativity, which I think very few people would agree with. That doesn't mean that everything should be free and content creators can go die in a fire, but I really don't think that there is anyone in this conversation suggesting that.
The entirety of what you are saying is hypothetical.
Literally your entire viewpoint is framed in the idea that selfish enterprise inhibits progress, whereas mine is founded in clear evidence that selfish desires have, in many cases, led to great advancements in human technology
Does this look like progress? Let's pay close attention to Africa, India, and China. This is where the majority of the worlds population is and this is what the progress there is.
The entirety of what you are saying is hypothetical.
Literally your entire viewpoint is framed in the idea that selfish enterprise inhibits progress, whereas mine is founded in clear evidence that selfish desires have, in many cases, led to great advancements in human technology
Does this look like progress? Let's pay closs attention to Africa, India, and China. This is where the majority of the worlds population is and this is what the progress there is.
Pretty impressive to me, compared to barely 100 years ago!
Yes and after 100 years of harsh inflations and economic collapses. I'm sure these graphs are comparable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-capitalism I need to get homework done so argue with this Wikipedia article instead
The entirety of what you are saying is hypothetical.
Literally your entire viewpoint is framed in the idea that selfish enterprise inhibits progress, whereas mine is founded in clear evidence that selfish desires have, in many cases, led to great advancements in human technology
Does this look like progress? Let's pay close attention to Africa, India, and China. This is where the majority of the worlds population is and this is what the progress there is.
Perhaps you should look up what progress means. Progress requires at least two data points, in this case levels of income by points of time, and through comparison you can determine "progress" in some specifically defined capacity from one of those points to the other.
Pointing out that some people in the world are poorer than others does not denote progress. And even if you had two data points, you still haven't defined what progress is. They're speaking of technological/scientific progress, which by all types of evidence, is actually progressed through IP management. If you're speaking of the progress of global equity, then that's certainly questionable but the reasons for that can hardly be neutered into some tiny label like "greed" or "patents."
If you're so convinced that things should be given away for free whenever possible, perhaps you should examine the effects of large scale food donations to various countries. Guess what? Making things free can hurt 'progress' as well.
On June 16 2011 12:52 Jibba wrote: They're speaking of technological/scientific progress, which by all types of evidence, is actually progressed through IP management.
O.o Let me guess, you never even heard of Groklaw? And you have absolutely no idea what the world's most innovative tech company (google) stance on IP is?
If your response is going to be "Android!", then please just don't respond. Google has a completley unique situation as likely the world's largest advertising syndicate.
If your response is going to be "Android!", then please just don't respond.
Haha, I was so 100% sure you were gonna reply that. Indeed you don't know what their stance is They're buying Nortel patents to defend themselves. Exactly because they believe in fighting in the market instead of fighting in courts. Nortel's portfolio's will make Microsoft less likely to keep attacking Google (ie. hurting innovation). And save Google billions in trying to defend themselves against lawsuits. Google themselves have never attacked anyone.
In short, what you posted proves precisely the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Next time bother learning about the subject instead of just posting the first search result you find ^^
Hopefully, it will come down to wether you make money out of the streaming. Jtv has already stated that streams with producer rank (which unlocks commercial use) are not allowed to play copyrighted music. I guess thats as far as they can go. If you are streaming your gaming and playing music just to entertain, I guess that the governments cant do much about it, hopefully...
If your response is going to be "Android!", then please just don't respond.
Haha, I was so 100% sure you were gonna reply that. Indeed you don't know what their stance is They're buying Nortel patents to defend themselves. Exactly because they believe in fighting in the market instead of fighting in courts. Nortel's portfolio's will make Microsoft less likely to keep attacking Google (ie. hurting innovation). And save Google billions in trying to defend themselves against lawsuits. Google themselves have never attacked anyone.
In short, what you posted proves precisely the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Next time bother learning about the subject instead of just posting the first search result you find ^^
You don't think Google was patenting their services long before that (hint: they were) or have never countersued anyone (hint: they have)?
I think the copyright discussion while interesting and fairly related has somewhat distracted from what this article/legislation is most directly tied to, which is streaming of copyrighted content.
If someone is sitting around streaming South Park episodes all day, no streaming site is going to let the advertise, or share ad revenues they generate. I personally don't care for people that do this, and really don't understand the thought process that causes them to do it. Probably either some sense of popularity seeing several hundred people watching 'them stream' who are really just watching South Park, maybe some sense of providing a service to the community at large.
I think that if anything, this is the most 'malicious' form of streaming content that is most directly capable of hurting a pre-existing revenue system. Be it taking viewers away from the show itself, or ads from the content owners site or stream, this is the most obviously and directly problematic form of infringement, and I have a hard time imagining it being worth wiretaps and FBI crackdowns. If copyright holders care, they should hold stream websites responsible for the content of their sites, and stream websites can then police and shutdown or penalize streamers, or give their information over to ISPs to take appropriate action.
The other thing, which I don't think actually suffers from this is music content being used in conjunction with fair use or personal content, be it a SC2 player streaming his ladder games while listening to (and in many setups therefor streaming) the music they are listening to. This does not in any way hurt the music industry. If anything, people in chat more often ask what a song is so that they can acquire it (again, although there are thousands of ways for people to get the media without paying or via other illegal means, it is meaningless for this discussion unless you hope to stop all of them by cracking down on streaming media.)
To me, this is very troublesome to think about, as esports and streaming content are expanded upon, tons of people are trying to make a name for themselves as gamers or casters etc. and having legislation like this looming overhead, where someone has to fear law enforcement if they accidentally show their desktop and it has a copyrighted image on it, or the wrong logo, or they have to be talking to their viewers nonstop, or have a silent stream and not listen to music etc. It just seems very heavy handed to even suggest when if anything, it helps sell music. I'd love to see a metric somewhere of how many copies of songs or albums are sold after being heard on Day[9]'s stream in the pre-show.
At the end of the day, unless you destroy the internet, people will illegally obtain free copies of things. Even if you do that, you cannot stop someone from burning a copy of something and mailing it, or handing it off to someone else. That is an unavoidable truth about the world since the dawn of the information age. If companies/corporations really want to make the best of it, they need to help create the means by which they can still profit from creating their content, and I don't think that the steps outlined in the article are going to help that. The fear of reprimand is important to keep the volume of piracy down a little bit, but I think the South Park episode had it right in a lot of ways about how it is hard to feel sorry for people who are still living extremely lavish lives.
You can only say that piracy hurts innovation/creativity if you believe that profit is the only thing that drives innovation/creativity, which I think very few people would agree with. That doesn't mean that everything should be free and content creators can go die in a fire, but I really don't think that there is anyone in this conversation suggesting that.
I really agreed with most of what you said, but it seemed to fall apart towards the end. Profit isn't the only thing that drives innovation, but it is the main thing, particularly when it comes to things which require a great deal of investment of effort time and money. Of course people won't innovate in such ways if they don't expect to profit off of it.
That said, when corporations lobby the government they're obviously interested in more than just protecting their rights, though the individuals running those corporations certainly have rights, and more to protect than most people. They want to make as much money as possible for the most part, by whatever ridiculous means may be available, and if somehow they can claim a "right" to be the sole distributer of something for over a hundred years, they won't stop at a more reasonable goal like 15-20. The government and the people who elect government have to say 'no' to these people, as would be routine in general if anyone knew what the government's role in society was supposed to be anymore.
If your response is going to be "Android!", then please just don't respond.
Haha, I was so 100% sure you were gonna reply that. Indeed you don't know what their stance is They're buying Nortel patents to defend themselves. Exactly because they believe in fighting in the market instead of fighting in courts. Nortel's portfolio's will make Microsoft less likely to keep attacking Google (ie. hurting innovation). And save Google billions in trying to defend themselves against lawsuits. Google themselves have never attacked anyone.
In short, what you posted proves precisely the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Next time bother learning about the subject instead of just posting the first search result you find ^^
You don't think Google was patenting their services long before that (hint: they were) or have never countersued anyone (hint: they have)?
Did you not read what I posted? How does that change anything?
Google believes IP lawsuits hurts innovation. Have always defended themselves against lawsuits. (which they claim are done by companies who cannot compete with them in the market, so have to resort to the court). And have never attacked anyone. And these guys, with that stance, happen to be the most innovative tech company in the planet.
If your response is going to be "Android!", then please just don't respond.
Haha, I was so 100% sure you were gonna reply that. Indeed you don't know what their stance is They're buying Nortel patents to defend themselves. Exactly because they believe in fighting in the market instead of fighting in courts. Nortel's portfolio's will make Microsoft less likely to keep attacking Google (ie. hurting innovation). And save Google billions in trying to defend themselves against lawsuits. Google themselves have never attacked anyone.
In short, what you posted proves precisely the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Next time bother learning about the subject instead of just posting the first search result you find ^^
You don't think Google was patenting their services long before that (hint: they were) or have never countersued anyone (hint: they have)?
Did you not read what I post? How does that change anything?
Google believes IP lawsuits hurts innovation. Have always defended themselves against lawsuits. (which they claim are done by companies who cannot compete with them in the market, so have to resort to that). And have never attacked anyone. And these guys, with that stance, happen to be the most innovative tech company in the planet.
Everything they do makes money through advertising. If Google didn't have AdSense and AdMob everything would be a paid service. They can afford to take that stance because it's the world's largest advertising company. That is their business.
When someone restreams an NFL game, how much extra advertising revenue is being generated and how much goes to the NFL? Absolutely none. If Google didn't get paid for advertising on their services, they'd be broke.
If your response is going to be "Android!", then please just don't respond.
Haha, I was so 100% sure you were gonna reply that. Indeed you don't know what their stance is They're buying Nortel patents to defend themselves. Exactly because they believe in fighting in the market instead of fighting in courts. Nortel's portfolio's will make Microsoft less likely to keep attacking Google (ie. hurting innovation). And save Google billions in trying to defend themselves against lawsuits. Google themselves have never attacked anyone.
In short, what you posted proves precisely the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Next time bother learning about the subject instead of just posting the first search result you find ^^
You don't think Google was patenting their services long before that (hint: they were) or have never countersued anyone (hint: they have)?
Did you not read what I post? How does that change anything?
Google believes IP lawsuits hurts innovation. Have always defended themselves against lawsuits. (which they claim are done by companies who cannot compete with them in the market, so have to resort to that). And have never attacked anyone. And these guys, with that stance, happen to be the most innovative tech company in the planet.
They can afford to take that stance
And you don't think that's a sign that maybe it's possible to make money (and consequently innovation) without having to go to courts to attack IP infringement? Or do you think they are the only business in the world who can afford to take that stance?
While old-school and outdated game companies like nintendo and ea are fighting are arming themselves to the teeth against piracy. The single richest and fastest growing game company in the whole world is distributing its games for free.
Doesn't that give you any hint that maybe the world is changing. And that in the current state, you can make a shitload of money and innovation without IP litigation? And consequently IP disputes hurt innovation more than they help.
They can't police it worldwide. Their the USA, not the World Police, they can only enforce this upon US Citizens. But don't worry, they're home of the "free".
All jokes aside, this is fucking stupid, especially seeing as streaming is still a very young emerging industry. Greed is all that fuels this law.
Perhaps greed does fuel their motivations, but they are a corporation and they should try to make profit. Should they change their business model to fit the changing landscape-yes. However, I don't think you can argue that they are not entitled to the right to their property. That is what this bill is for, it is protecting what is theirs. Ultimently we are the ones watching something that we have not paid for.
On June 16 2011 12:52 Jibba wrote: They're speaking of technological/scientific progress, which by all types of evidence, is actually progressed through IP management.
O.o Let me guess, you never even heard of Groklaw? And you have absolutely no idea what the world's most innovative tech company (google) stance on IP is?
Google would make a ton of money if there were fewer laws against IP, so why should we expect them to have any other stance? Also, how does a case study of one company prove that fewer IP laws lead to greater innovation?
The thing is, people only pirate when they can't afford it in the first place. If people cannot pirate the material they will simply never see it. That does not increase the revenue of the people who "own" the copyrighted material. Not to mention that this law gets more and more broad when they keep adding another comma and another word to describe mediums. First it was hard copies then it was downloads, now it is streaming. Eventually everyone is pirating something from everyone else because the only time you are not breaking the law is when someone doesn't mind you using their info. Then you are trusting companies to not want to sue people where they can get free money instead of working for it. Obviously Blizzard won't sue Destiny for streaming without a license to do so, but they will say something to Day[9] about music he played. Where is the line and where is the consistency? This is why things need to be rewritten for modern times. We need to stop clogging up the courts with frivolous lawsuits. A lot of this happens because there are so many out of work lawyers fresh out of law school with tons of debt and no job offers. (There isn't a lot of money in doing bankruptcies for people.) These laws are getting close to the IRS tax laws which are so complex that everyone thinks they did something wrong so they won't dare draw any attention to themselves even if they think they had to pay too much. Everyone is scared to death of getting audited by the IRS even when they went to H&R Block or some reputable place and tried to do it right. By creating this fear, you stop speaking out as much. You stop creating revolutions in the Middle East and Africa via social networking, which includes streaming, to spread new ideas of how you want to live. They just want you to think this is about the industries being robbed of money.
On June 16 2011 10:10 xarthaz wrote: Intellectual property is cancer to society. It creates scarcity and conflict where none is necessary. Media can be peacefully and globally shared without anyone pointing a gun toward someone else. It is purely barbaric to punish people for using content that takes nothing away from anyone else.
On June 16 2011 10:01 cfoy3 wrote: I think some people here are being a little ridiculous. I mean corporation's have rights too. Hollywood spends a lot of money making quality entertainment. They need revenue. If this law starts to clamp down on the illegal streaming of entertainment, such as tv shows, then I think its a good thing. If we do not make the business of producing entertainment profitable, then their wont be a business.
No, you dont understand. The artificial scarcity is twhat is ridiculous. It is purely evil, due to enforcement of violence over rights that no one need have.
You know theres easier way to let people know youre a moron.
People who have issues with IP are either children, have the mental capacity of children, or never able to grasp the idea of actually creating somethign for profit. Some of us worked hard not to be minimum wage fry makers like you.
It is strange youre using that argument - when all that is necessary to make profits in a non-IP world in those same fields (gaming, music, movies, entertainment) is altering of business models. As a self respecting person, you are surely aware of the scarce/nonscarce distinction between physical property and IP. As such, all that is necessary for those business fields to be profitable without ip is concentration on the scarce aspects of the product - like delivering a service, physical bonuses, advertisement or merchandise based model. Im sure you are aware that for smaller businesses engaging in IP production that is the focus anyway - as the cartelized system of IP revenue enforcement is more suitable for the corporations and already established product lines.
Will this really affect sc2 streams given you don't stream any music/video? I find it very unclear if this applies to video games because you're not able to play the game by watching a stream thus making it a lot less of a crime in comparison to streaming of music/videos where you basically get the whole product for free.
The thing is, people only pirate when they can't afford it in the first place. If people cannot pirate the material they will simply never see it. That does not increase the revenue of the people who "own" the copyrighted material. Not to mention that this law gets more and more broad when they keep adding another comma and another word to describe mediums. First it was hard copies then it was downloads, now it is streaming. Eventually everyone is pirating something from everyone else because the only time you are not breaking the law is when someone doesn't mind you using their info. Then you are trusting companies to not want to sue people where they can get free money instead of working for it. Obviously Blizzard won't sue Destiny for streaming without a license to do so, but they will say something to Day[9] about music he played. Where is the line and where is the consistency? This is why things need to be rewritten for modern times. We need to stop clogging up the courts with frivolous lawsuits. A lot of this happens because there are so many out of work lawyers fresh out of law school with tons of debt and no job offers. (There isn't a lot of money in doing bankruptcies for people.) These laws are getting close to the IRS tax laws which are so complex that everyone thinks they did something wrong so they won't dare draw any attention to themselves even if they think they had to pay too much. Everyone is scared to death of getting audited by the IRS even when they went to H&R Block or some reputable place and tried to do it right. By creating this fear, you stop speaking out as much. You stop creating revolutions in the Middle East and Africa via social networking, which includes streaming, to spread new ideas of how you want to live. They just want you to think this is about the industries being robbed of money.
I disagree with your starting assumption that people only stream when they do not have the money to watch the content legally. I think a good percent stream tv, not because they cannot afford it, but because it frees them up to spend money on other things they can not get for free. Now as to your comments regarding courts and what reforms they should undergo, I can not comment. I am simply not an expert in court structure and what problems they currently have. Perhaps if you could link to sources that explain these problems more fully with comments from experts/rebutals I could debate the merits of such a proposal.
Further, I have commented a few times and no one seems to debate the basic notion that in the current legal framework the corporations have the right to ask for this law. So far I have seen only arguments that deal against the general act of capitalism and then treat immorality of IP rights as a derivative result. I feel while this argument has some merit it does not pertain to this specific issue and a new thread made debating the merits of capitalism and IP rights could potentially be brought up in that context.
Another reason for me to leave the US ... I can't believe the government would even consider something this stupid. eSports is starting to grow in the world, and this would seriously hamper it's progress in the US. I hope this does not happen.
Currently this is discouraging. But I am going to try not to worry about it too much and carry on. The bill seems too vague at this point, and it will probably take a while for it to get through legislation. However, I would keep an eye on it, and if it goes to vote I would write your representative.
On June 30 2011 12:03 Jonny55 wrote: Another reason for me to leave the US ... I can't believe the government would even consider something this stupid. eSports is starting to grow in the world, and this would seriously hamper it's progress in the US. I hope this does not happen.
go to canada man. i heArd theres no internet problems there
EPT
internet nerds agree that they love free stuff and countries agree that its illegal and should be banned but cant agree how to stop it.
Especially sad to see how american lobbies have such huge influence over our own politicians and manage to pass almost any legislation here.
![[image loading]](http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/3696/pdvd019nl4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/maputi.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://2redroses.com/Fun/Best2002/Light%20of%20the%20World.jpg)
