SOPA and LPSG

[deleted15807]

Certainly there is a fair amount of 'piracy' out there. However this law is nothing but a pure power grab by the giant media companies. The power that they would have if these laws are passed is unconscionable.

 

[hud01]

Could you provide us with an example where, a) Something with a copywrite has been illegally distributed on a website? b) How should it be distributed legally so that the copywrite holder is paid royalities.

Actually there are many where movies are on a download site and the way they would get royalties is having someone buy a dvd....

 

[travis1985]

well you asked for it. Nazi execution of jews was carried out according to law. You are saying this was correct. If the Nazis had won ww2 this would have continued and very like become the norm in europe at least, maybe in the US too by now. The simple fact that some idiot writes a law does not make it right. Every tyrany in history has been overthrown by civil disobedience. Civil disobedience, such as the recent blackout demonstration, is an important tool in justice. (Real justice that is, not what governments define to be justice, which varies wildly)

So while we are on the subject of justice rather than law, copyright is a pure intellectual invention. Consider also patent law, which I think came first. A patent is an exclusive right to exploit some invention for a period. The idea of a patent is that the inventor tells everyone about their invention so that they can benefit from it, but in return gets a limited right to use it exclusively, or license it. Patents do not last very long, maybe 20 years? Copyright now has got so out of control it can last for 150 years and owners are still demanding it should be lengthened. The public has had enough of this. We demand the right that having bought a disc once we can copy it onto tape, or cassette, or cd or ipod as the technology changes. We demand not to be ripped off paying a company over the odds for creating a disc we could now burn ourselves or distributing it on the internet. The public is in rebellion over copyright because it has got out of control and allows owners to make vast profits indefinitely. Law is there to create a fair balance between people and copyright no longer does this.

Again, not a very good analogy, as Nazi Germany rarely is. What makes you think that buying a single copy of someone else's work should give you the right to copy and redistribute at will, that for $12.99 you should suddenly own the copyright yourself? That's the most entitled, presumptous, something-for-nothing idea I've heard in a long time.

 

[travis1985]

This law turns website owners into policemen. You are sending the postman to jail because he delivered a bootleg cd to your address. More, you are banning him from being a postman until he pays a big fine (how much will it cost to get an injunction lifted, even if you have sorted out the situation?) The law is wide open to using copyright as an excuse to attack websites. For example, wikileaks. Someone must own copyright on those documents, so a claim can be made in a US court that a British government copyright document has been posted on wikileaks...and good bye wikileaks. All links to it banned in the US! BBC news shows a leaked document from France, French gov complains...and good bye BBC in the US?

The postman analogy isn't a very good one, either. It's closer to motel proprietors being prosecuted as accessories to prostitution: on one hand, they're not their customers' nannies, but on the other hand it is common knowledge what goes on in their building and they deliberately turn a blind eye, pretending it's the first they've heard of it when the police show up.

And, of course, many countries' government documents are in the public domain. If it's a problem that not all countries follow this pattern, take it up with them at the source.

 

[travis1985]

Ahhh there you go, the laws are already on the books as was proven with the website shutdown which occurred the other day, so these new ones are not needed

It's a shame that additional laws have to be passed to get existing ones enforced. My concerns would be a non-issue if websites hosting copyrighted material would do the right thing in the first place.

 

[travis1985]

Could you provide us with an example where, a) Something with a copywrite has been illegally distributed on a website? b) How should it be distributed legally so that the copywrite holder is paid royalities.

EDIT: Actually, no, I'm not going to post the link like I was doing at first. That would be wrong. There are hundreds of movies on youtube in their entirety which should be purchased or rented legally by people wishing to see them.

 

[redneckgymrat]

What makes you think that buying a single copy of someone else's work should give you the right to copy and redistribute at will, that for $12.99 you should suddenly own the copyright yourself? That's the most entitled, presumptous, something-for-nothing idea I've heard in a long time.

A question for you, concerning practical implementation...let's use something obscure, on this side of the world.

I own Perfume's album Triangle, on both CD and DVD. It is protected by Japanese copyright law, obviously, and incredibly difficult to even find in the USA.

Is it your assertion that I should run into legal issues, when copying a legally purchased CD from Japan, from the CD to my iPod? What about multiple copies...I have iPod, iPhone, Zune, and Android devices. Hey, I'm a high-tech redneck!

Is it your assertion that I am behaving in an "entitled" way, because I am not using my legally purchased copy exclusively in a CD player? I'm asking sincerely...

On what logical grounds could you assert that I should not have the right to listen to legally purchased content on whatever devices I want?

BTW, if you've never heard them, Perfume has a great beat for cardio at the gym...Mihimaru and Kreva, too.

 

[dandelion]

Again, not a very good analogy, as Nazi Germany rarely is.

Fine. The single defining issue of the 20th century should be dismissed? It is a fundamental truth that the only defence of civil liberties is a personal stand by individuals in defiance of established authority. Isnt that why the american constitution demands the personal right to bear arms? To guard against tyranical governments?

What makes you think that buying a single copy of someone else's work should give you the right to copy and redistribute at will, that for $12.99 you should suddenly own the copyright yourself? That's the most entitled, presumptous, something-for-nothing idea I've heard in a long time.

I didnt say that. I said I bought a copy and should have the right to use it as I think fit for myself. I downloaded (and paid for) something the other day for my niece. It is of no interest to me, yet I noticed the terms of service say i cannot transfer it to anyone. So i have broken that law. I suggest anyone with any sense do the same. If those selling such material make unreasonable terms then they should be ignored, in fact they should be made illegal.

Owners of copyright are bellyaching because that copyright is being ignored, but they have only themselves to blame for being greedy.

Incidentally, you do know that the US has also arranged extradition treaties for itself where it can extradite foreign citizens from foreign countries (for example, the UK) without providing any evidence? There has been a case rumbling along in UK courts about a guy with asbergers syndrome who was looking for evidence of UFOs by hacking US government computer systems. They want to send him to jail for 60 years for being a nutter. Broadly speaking, the UK population thinks the case is ridiculous, the US have been pursuing his extradition for 7 years and it being held up on the technicality he is a serious suicide risk. Not anything to do with the question of evidence. Us wants to rule the world, and it isnt even very good at it.

The postman analogy isn't a very good one, either. It's closer to motel proprietors being prosecuted as accessories to prostitution:

well now you mention it, thats another very stupid law banning someone selling their own sexual services.

And, of course, many countries' government documents are in the public domain. If it's a problem that not all countries follow this pattern, take it up with them at the source.

If all government documents were in the public domain (particualrly those from the US) we wouldnt need wikileaks, now would we? Can i take it you will be demanding the US release all currently secret (and very probably embarassing) documents?

 

[redneckgymrat]

Fine. The single defining issue of the 20th century should be dismissed? It is a fundamental truth that the only defence of civil liberties is a personal stand by individuals in defiance of established authority. Isnt that why the american constitution demands the personal right to bear arms?

It's one of about 4 reasons...according to the founders, themselves, arms serve purposes including hunting, sport, home protection, and the ability to stand up for yourself against an oppressive regime. Yeah, they wrote in the *right* to revolution, if it ever came to that.

Federalist Papers...the "director's commentary" to the US Constitution.

Here's a good explanation:
The 2nd Amendment - YouTube

 

[travis1985]

Owners of copyright are bellyaching because that copyright is being ignored, but they have only themselves to blame for being greedy.

How are they being greedy? By expecting, as required by law, to be paid for their merchandise?

well now you mention it, thats another very stupid law banning someone selling their own sexual services.

I agree, but it's still against the law.

If all government documents were in the public domain (particualrly those from the US) we wouldnt need wikileaks, now would we? Can i take it you will be demanding the US release all currently secret (and very probably embarassing) documents?

No, you're the one demanding that things be released.

 

[dandelion]

How are they being greedy? By expecting, as required by law, to be paid for their merchandise?....I agree, but it's still against the law.

I think this is where we began the debate. It is clear a very large number of people, probably the majority of those technically capable, break this law and believe it should not be the law. Law reflects the will of the majority. Eventually.

No, you're the one demanding that things be released.

I dont think lpsg is really a likely place for posting leaked government documents, but stranger things have happened. If some government decided to
kill gays or adulterers a lot of us might be concerned, and that national government might use this law to close down lpsg because it had hosted their secret document about this?

 

[lucky8]

@Travis1985:

The problem with the SOPA law as it stands, is that for just an allegation, a site can be shut down, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. Basically, someone makes an allegation that a site violates copyright; and Bam that site can cease to exist, without any kind of evidence that it was violating someone's copyright.

That's what's so scary. The potential it has to be a vehicle for government and corporate censorship. That's why so many people VEHEMENTLY oppose SOPA. Even ones who are in support of copyright enforcement.

This is the crux of this issue. The government is trying to do away with Constitutional rights. It's not a conspiracy theory. People in our government are actually conspiring to slowly dismantle our Constitution, and none of us should stand for it. Obama already signed the NDAA (on new year's eve suspiciously enough) which allows for the indefinite detainment of AMERICAN CITIZENS without any trial or due process. He basically just took a shit on our Bill of Rights, and SOPA is the next step.

Again, this bill isn't about copyright protection. The entertainment industry has billions of dollars at its disposal to adapt to the market and protect its products, just like every other industry in America. Besides, most digital media produced these days has DRM attached to it, which is incredibly hard for even experienced techies to remove. The protection is there and the laws exist. People break laws all day every day. It's impossible to catch/prevent everyone who wants to break the law from breaking the law. This is no different, and we should all refuse to give our government this kind of power. It's a Pandora's box that we don't want to open...