Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As the conversation so far in this thread demonstrates there is a need for balance. On the one hand, the creators of content are entitled to some protection of their hard work so that they are able to fairly benefit from it. On the other hand, the law does not want to criminalize millions of people who were not aware that they were breaking the law when they clicked on YouTube for example. A future law should target those people who are stealing the copyrighted work and making it available to the end user.
Classic federal overreach.
And love the use of the term "pirate" as if anyone who downloads a vid or mp3 is the moral equivalent of a bloodthirsty murderer and rapist.Mmm more kool aid and group think please.
You've all been duped by an ever expanding and predatory gov.
I certainly don't agree with many of the practices, do what I do, don't buy it. Everyone wants immedite satisfaction ans as long as consumers continue to accept these ridiculous restrictions they aren't going to go away. The right of the content owner to control how their product is distributed is not going to change. Buy the damn book in the store if you want to share it with your friends.
That sounds so much like .... "if you don't want TSA sticking their hands down your pants, don't fly".
But, this is not AT ALL the point. The actual point here is not whether one has the freedom to share, nor even whether one should have such a right to share. This is about instituting another draconian law (yes, I think charging someone with a felony and putting them in prison for watching a movie online fits the description of "draconian") for which the obvious and inherent flaws of such a law are too numerous to count.
As I've already stated, copyright law is terribly intricate, and is a specialty unto itself ... just like criminal law is ... just like corporate contract law .. just like patent law. You wouldn't seek a criminal lawyer to represent you as either a plaintiff or defendant in a copyright suit ... they would direct you to an attorney specializing in copyright law. For that reason alone, expecting the average person to understand those intricacies well enough to be able to avoid breaking such a law is categorically unreasonable right from the outset, and a violation of the principles of common law for that reason.
Criminal law, in the most basic sense is reasonably easy for a layman to understand ... you need not be a lawyer to understand that you are not allowed to commit armed robbery, nor is there any way for armed robbery to be legal to commit, even if the victim would choose not to prosecute the robber. The victim has no say in the matter. This is not the case with copyright. Copyright is something that a person can use to protect their intellectual material if they so CHOOSE to. They can also CHOOSE not to exercise that protection. As an example, one could make a documentary film, with the intent to freely distribute that film at no charge, and allow free copying and distribution of that material for maximum distribution coverage, such as advertising or attracting visitors to a website. There are numerous situations by which an author may purposely wave copyright, and several conditions which constitute such waving of copyright, even if it was unintended or inadvertent. Furthermore, there are other allowances within copyright law that permits the unauthorized use of copyright material under "fair use". These are just a few of the incalculable number of variables within the law defining copyright protection that make it IMPOSSIBLE for the end user or recipient of alleged copyrighted material to know the status of that material, or whether the hosting agent has distribution permission for such material, which would determine a violation.
Now this is just the tip of the iceberg regarding the fundamental flaws in criminalizing a behavior such as downloading digital content. And these issues are well understood by that gaggle of lawyers infesting Washington's District of Criminals. Consequently, the intent of such a power to prosecute has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting intellectual property because there is already adequate civil law in place to do that. This is about using the "pretext" of protecting intellectual property for the sole purpose of expanding the powers of government to prosecute and incarcerate, because that too is a money making venture for the State on several levels, and also another means to create revenue streams for the multitude of privatized, for profit prisons in this land of the free and home of the brave .... who ... by the way .... have more people incarcerated today than any other country on planet earth. And you SLAVES just love the feeling of air being taken away from you by the jackboot pressing down on your windpipes, don't you?
It's mind boggling to see such ignorance by the general public ... particularly on the far left, who seem to embrace the criminalization of every conceivable human activity. How in the world people have been convinced to despise freedom so much that they will ignore the dangers inherent in their own championing of such self defeating causes, is beyond comprehension.
These scumbag law makers who are engaging in this type of blatant criminal conspiracy against the free people of these United States ought to be strung up by their toes in town square, for all of the town's people to see what traitors look like. And their useful IDIOT supporters who would embrace such laws as ridiculous as this, ought to be strung up right along side them so that the people can also see what "Stupid" looks like too.
This is what happens when Big Government gets in bed with Big Business... the Americans subjugated to the rule of businesses... classic crony capitalism... Obama is no different... really sad...
Or more accurately, in bed with Hollywood. Obama will be sure and take care of his Hollywood buddies.
Or more accurately, in bed with Hollywood. Obama will be sure and take care of his Hollywood buddies.
Look, this isn't about Hollywood .... this is just another leg of the agenda to install a total control grid, and facilitate a takeover of the internet by stealth. For crying out loud ... it's already been in the mainstream news that the government wants an "Internet Kill Switch" ! They've been pushing this scam of "Net Neutrality". What's it gonna take? A freaking confession? Do you want Obama to just say ... "we are taking over the internet, and purge it of any content critical of US Domestic or foreign policy" ? Would that be a big enough clue?
What better than to pass a law allowing federal thugs to storm in and seize servers and institute ISP denial of service to ANY website which the government doesn't agree with? One need not be overly imaginative to envision how such a law could be applied to SQUASH the alternative news media on the internet, AT WILL. Any website critical of US Government actions could easily be monitored and shutdown for alleged copyright violations, even if no such violation took place. Most alternative news website operators operate on such skinny budgets, they couldn't possibly defend themselves against federal prosecution and seizing of computer servers and denial of service for anyone deemed an enemy of the powers that be.
The entire "intellectual property protection" ploy is such a blatant farce, how can anyone fail to see what these crooks are up to?
How has America become so naive with so many examples of government lying and using false pretexts for their nefarious activities?
Jesus Joseph and Mary .... wake up people .... we have to be the dumbest human beings ever to breathe air.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was, and never will be" - Thomas Jefferson.
Well if you throw all the folks streaming video/music/etc into jail on felony charges then there should be no need for throttling the internet because bandwidth usage will be greatly decreased.
There..solved your problem of people hogging bandwidth so the FCC has no reason to rule the internet for our protection.
Classic federal overreach.
And love the use of the term "pirate" as if anyone who downloads a vid or mp3 is the moral equivalent of a bloodthirsty murderer and rapist.Mmm more kool aid and group think please.
You've all been duped by an ever expanding and predatory gov.
Frank, how is it possible that so many people are capable of dressing themselves ... tying their own shoes .... driving automobiles ... operating computers ... and yet not possess the intellectual capacity of an earthworm?
I'm really losing hope for the future. And it's not just the staggering level of stupidity ... it is also the callousness and arrogance that comes with it.
Here in the United States, you cannot seem to jog a response from the masses on very critical issues ... but God forbid we experience a shortage of diet coke ... there would be riots.
And we have people joking about the disaster unfolding in Japan ... Rush Limpjaw, and Glenn Beck laughing ..... we have that LA News Anchor Woman yesterday questioning how this disaster will impact the availability of sushi for crying out loud!!! Sushi? That's what this numskull finds so concerning?
Intellectually, I understand that there really are a lot of great people in this world ... caring, compassionate, brave, selfless individuals who work every day to help their fellow human beings ... care for the vulnerable animals ... etc. But Jesus ... we've also got a large number of people who seem to be without souls, who haven't got a clue about what is really important ... or really have much of a clue about anything.
Sometimes I wonder to myself if the Elitists who want to reduce the world population by 90% don't have some rational basis for their obvious disdain for the human race. I hate to admit that ... but some people really beg for such potential considerations.
I don't think filming a movie with a video camera in the theater is pirating anything. It's not an exact copy.
...and this is one of the reasons for copyrights,to maintain the integrity of the work. You've altered and degraded the original and then present it as the authors work.
Quote:
The same argument used for VHS and cassette tapes. It is said that it is NOT pirating when you record something to these types of media because it is not an exact digital copy of the original.
There's a specific exception in copyright law because that was decided by the courts. Look up "Beta max case". When you record something this is referred to as "time shifting" for later viewing which is then supposed to be deleted, you're not legally allowed to amass giant collection of videos.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They've been pushing this scam of "Net Neutrality". What's it gonna take? A freaking confession? Do you want Obama to just say ... "we are taking over the internet, and purge it of any content critical of US Domestic or foreign policy" ? Would that be a big enough clue?
