(11-16-2011 11:19 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  Don't post copyrighted material without permission. You and others like you who post copyrighted material are the only reason this bill is being considered. Stop it and maybe they will to.

No, the reason this bill is being considered is because the MPAA/RIAA and their lobbyist goons have bought in full a sizeable portion of Congress, who will front for any bill the MPAA/RIAA draws up, no matter how draconian, job killing, and anti-competitive it may be.

(11-16-2011 10:15 AM)mlb Wrote:  The government never uses laws in ways they were unintended to allow them to pull things off... my lord people, we don't need more laws, we need less!

More enforcement, fewer laws.

(11-16-2011 11:19 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(11-16-2011 08:13 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Although my Senator and Representative are not on the list yet, I am contacting them to see where they stand. Most of us in the spin room have posted copyrighted content in whole or in part and to make it a civil crime giving subpoena power to a bunch of vulture lawyers is the outcome of this bill. As with Righthaven, people will fall victim to federal prosecution where the object is settlement money in lieu of the costs to a protracted legal battle. It's legal extortion.

People need to do their part to protect the freedom adults now possess. Contact your Representatives, Today.

Don't post copyrighted material without permission. You and others like you who post copyrighted material are the only reason this bill is being considered. Stop it and maybe they will to.

I believe in fair use. If I'm not making a profit from it, how can there be damages. The Clinton DMCA is a total disgrace and so is this bill. If an org. like AP gives permission to CNN to reprint news stories, then it should be considered public domain.

Congress ... demonstrating how they know absolutely nothing about technology. The stream of the committee meeting has completely died.

(11-16-2011 11:23 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-16-2011 11:19 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  Don't post copyrighted material without permission. You and others like you who post copyrighted material are the only reason this bill is being considered. Stop it and maybe they will to.

No, the reason this bill is being considered is because the MPAA/RIAA and their lobbyist goons have bought in full a sizeable portion of Congress, who will front for any bill the MPAA/RIAA draws up, no matter how draconian, job killing, and anti-competitive it may be.

And why is the MPAA/RIAA doing this? Because their copyrighted material is being illegally posted on certain web sites. Would you not want assistance in stopping people from stealing your copyrighted material? If you worked for years to write a novel and then people started posting free copies of it all over the internet, would you not feel cheated? I know that I would.

I sent correspondence to my Rep and Senators a couple weeks ago. I'm very worried about this.

(11-16-2011 11:25 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(11-16-2011 11:19 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(11-16-2011 08:13 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Although my Senator and Representative are not on the list yet, I am contacting them to see where they stand. Most of us in the spin room have posted copyrighted content in whole or in part and to make it a civil crime giving subpoena power to a bunch of vulture lawyers is the outcome of this bill. As with Righthaven, people will fall victim to federal prosecution where the object is settlement money in lieu of the costs to a protracted legal battle. It's legal extortion.

People need to do their part to protect the freedom adults now possess. Contact your Representatives, Today.

Don't post copyrighted material without permission. You and others like you who post copyrighted material are the only reason this bill is being considered. Stop it and maybe they will to.

I believe in fair use. If I'm not making a profit from it, how can there be damages. The Clinton DMCA is a total disgrace and so is this bill. If an org. like AP gives permission to CNN to reprint news stories, then it should be considered public domain.

Are you serious? If I take a copyrighted song and post it with free access, the copyright holder is losing potential revenue. It doesn't matter whether I am profitting from their work. The bottom line is that my actions are restricting their potential for profit.

So you are saying that since the copyright holder of a song gives a music company the license to sell that song that it should be public domain? That's ridiculous.

(11-16-2011 11:30 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  And why is the MPAA/RIAA doing this? Because their copyrighted material is being illegally posted on certain web sites. Would you not want assistance in stopping people from stealing your copyrighted material? If you worked for years to write a novel and then people started posting free copies of it all over the internet, would you not feel cheated? I know that I would.

The problem is three fold:

1) The MPAA and RIAA want to use a shotgun approach to combating copyright infringement, and they don't care about the high amount of collateral damage they cause. Furthermore, they want the taxpayer to have to foot as much of the enforcement bill as possible. So long as they want to abuse the taxpayer and innocent third parties ... YEA, I have a huge problem with what they're doing.

2) Copyright is grossly distorted in this country, and it is only getting worse. Copyrights of 75+ years is a joke. Copyright lifespan should be on par with that of patents. If we had a reasonable system of copyright, this wouldn't be nearly so much of an issue.

3) Copyright holders are slower than molasses at keeping up with consumers and giving them what they want. Hey numb nuts, maybe it would stop getting posted to YouTube every 5 minutes if you just had a streaming portal of your own with your own content where you can monetize it. Herp derp derpity derp get a clue.

The MPAA et al. have repeatedly shown a disregard for principles like fair use and Blackmun's Betamax decision (that a product with infringing uses is allowable if it is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses").

"We are going to bleed and bleed and hemorrhage, unless this Congress at least protects one industry that is able to retrieve a surplus balance of trade and whose total future depends on its protection from the savagery and the ravages of this machine. ... I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." - then-MPAA president Jack Valenti to a Congressional panel in 1982.

If you don't think they are going to push and stretch this law as far as they can, you are being naive. These are the industries that thought it would be a winning move to sue (potential) customers for tens of thousands of dollars for illegally copying as few as a handful of files.

(11-16-2011 11:36 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(11-16-2011 11:25 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(11-16-2011 11:19 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(11-16-2011 08:13 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Although my Senator and Representative are not on the list yet, I am contacting them to see where they stand. Most of us in the spin room have posted copyrighted content in whole or in part and to make it a civil crime giving subpoena power to a bunch of vulture lawyers is the outcome of this bill. As with Righthaven, people will fall victim to federal prosecution where the object is settlement money in lieu of the costs to a protracted legal battle. It's legal extortion.

People need to do their part to protect the freedom adults now possess. Contact your Representatives, Today.

Don't post copyrighted material without permission. You and others like you who post copyrighted material are the only reason this bill is being considered. Stop it and maybe they will to.

I believe in fair use. If I'm not making a profit from it, how can there be damages. The Clinton DMCA is a total disgrace and so is this bill. If an org. like AP gives permission to CNN to reprint news stories, then it should be considered public domain.

Are you serious? If I take a copyrighted song and post it with free access, the copyright holder is losing potential revenue. It doesn't matter whether I am profitting from their work. The bottom line is that my actions are restricting their potential for profit.

So you are saying that since the copyright holder of a song gives a music company the license to sell that song that it should be public domain? That's ridiculous.

I'm talking about posting news articles in the spin room. Where have you been?

As far as songs go... Answer me this... If I purchase an album, Led Zeppelin, Stairway to Heaven. Why do I have to re-buy it first in vinyl, then tape, 8track, then cd. Why do I not have the right to hear that album when I want? How I want. I think these f’ucks are raping us blind.

(11-16-2011 11:25 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I believe in fair use. If I'm not making a profit from it, how can there be damages. The Clinton DMCA is a total disgrace and so is this bill. If an org. like AP gives permission to CNN to reprint news stories, then it should be considered public domain.

I think this logic is flawed. First, of all, as posted above, it's about the source site' potential to profit from it that is - in theory - taken away by having the entire article reposted. Second, CNN pays AP in order to reprint ... I don't see any way to interpret that to mean it makes it public domain.

The list of the bill's supporters is a very strange mix of folks.

Feinstein and Alexander?

(11-16-2011 01:04 PM)alterego2 Wrote:  The list of the bill's supporters is a very strange mix of folks.

Feinstein and Alexander?

The MPAA and RIAA checkbooks are large and virtually bottomless. Everybody who had talk time for an opening statement at today's committee meeting had at least $10,000 in contributions from PACs in the music/TV/movie industry. Coincidence?

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011, more commonly referred to as the PROTECT IP Act of 2011. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue.

On May 12, 2011, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (S. 968) was introduced in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. This bill would allow the Attorney General or an intellectual property right owner who has been harmed by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities (ISDIA), also known as a rogue website, to take action against that site. A site would be designated as an ISDIA if their sole purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement, or promote or sale counterfeited works.

As you may know, I am a cosponsor of this bill and support the goals of this legislation. I am concerned about unscrupulous individuals engaging in the online theft of intellectual property, and believe that this bill represents a step in the right direction to combat this issue. I will keep your thoughts on this legislation in mind as it is further considered in the United States Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Kay R. Hagan

(11-16-2011 01:06 PM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  This bill would allow the Attorney General or an intellectual property right owner who has been harmed by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities (ISDIA), also known as a rogue website, to take action against that site. A site would be designated as an ISDIA if their sole purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement, or promote or sale counterfeited works.

I'm sure the AG and PARTICULARLY the IP holder would never ever ever abuse such power, or be unscrupulous about it towards competitors, riiiighttttttttttt? And she is lieing when she says "sole purpose". The language in the bill is massively vague and broad. Simply having a couple of links to infringing content is enough for the website operator to get blacklisted and charged with a felony.

TL;DR: BLOW ME Hagan.

All the more reason people should post links to articles and be careful about posting full articles and citing quotes.

People need to be careful what they do on the web anyway.

The type of IP theft discussed in H.R. 3261 and S.968 deals with intently CRIMINAL activity. That's a very small percentage, but they do a ton of damage because more people than there are who steal also torrent and catalyze the process of theft.

That is very damaging to the bottom line of the industries that create the content. I don't believe for one second that the internet is going to be turned on its ass just because of the misinterpreted wording in these bills. This is one set of bills that Congress might have finally gotten right.

(11-16-2011 04:24 PM)TampaKnight Wrote:  I don't believe for one second that the internet is going to be turned on its ass just because of the misinterpreted wording in these bills.

You have never heard of the Commerce Clause have you?

(11-16-2011 11:36 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  Are you serious? If I take a copyrighted song and post it with free access, the copyright holder is losing potential revenue. It doesn't matter whether I am profitting from their work. The bottom line is that my actions are restricting their potential for profit.

So you are saying that since the copyright holder of a song gives a music company the license to sell that song that it should be public domain? That's ridiculous.

You are clueless to copyright law, the history of copyright law, how big business perverted copyright law for its own gain and the history of how big business continues to pervert copyright law for its own gain. Look at you, killer! Fighting for big business.

Newsflash, idiot: Artists either have to adapt or die. Congress, nor big business, can censor the internet forever.

Well, I know with confidence at least ONE representative that will vote no. RP 2012