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.
Well, it is something. Too bad they didn't feel as inclined towards liberty when the destroyed the 5th & 6th Amendments of our US Constitution with the NDAA.
The average age of a Congressperson is 57 and 62 for a Senator. Now, if you're of my vintage, think about how much your parents know about computers and the internet. Now think that people with said level of knowledge are attempting to draft laws regulating how the internet works. That should scare you silly.
They are very well versed on the color green and the word contribution though.
And they are very skilled at naming laws that sound so moral and righteous and patriotic and positive
Add words or name bills with defense, stop piracy, patriot, family, values, and so on and why would anyone not want them. Don't worry about the mumbo jumbo the lawyers put in the pages upon pages in between.
Most people who create films, music, or write books are concerned about online piracy.
Copyright terms have been extended to absurd lengths. For individual authors, it is life + 70 years. This means that the works of authors who died after this date in 1942 are still subject to copyright enforcement if an estate or a corporation chooses to exercise them.
Think about that in real terms - a person who died at age 100 in 1942 (on the high end, but hardly unprecedented for that year) would have been born in 1842. Let's say this person wrote some accounts of the Civil War in the early 1860's.
Those works would potentially still be subject to copyright in the US.
That type of absurdity is one of the reasons that copyright itself is so widely disrespected as joke. If you make ridiculous laws, expect them to be ridiculed.
When the video cassette recorder and player came out certain corporate interests stated that it would create mass piracy and bankrupt their industry and looked to ban them. Well they weren't banned and the industry continued onward besides. But they had to evolve and compete to do so, which they don't want to have to do.
Think the fossil fuel industry wants advanced technology lessening demand for oil? Don't you think they'll use their very deep pockets and influence to prevent advancement?
Think the mainstream media wants opinions being voiced outside of theirs? Think they want to have to try harder or evolve or compete with lesser known influences not contracted to them but gaining drawing away their listeners and viewers and most of all drawing away their profit?
Copyright terms have been extended to absurd lengths. For individual authors, it is life + 70 years. This means that the works of authors who died after this date in 1942 are still subject to copyright enforcement if an estate or a corporation chooses to exercise them.
Think about that in real terms - a person who died at age 100 in 1942 (on the high end, but hardly unprecedented for that year) would have been born in 1842. Let's say this person wrote some accounts of the Civil War in the early 1860's.
Those works would potentially still be subject to copyright in the US.
That type of absurdity is one of the reasons that copyright itself is so widely disrespected as joke. If you make ridiculous laws, expect them to be ridiculed.
If someone creates a product or a work of art, I see no reason for the copyrights to ever expire at all.
If someone creates a product or a work of art, I see no reason for the copyrights to ever expire at all.
This.
I also don't agree with SOPA being killed. We need something to stop piracy. The internet is like the wild west and everyone is losing money everyday with software piracy. Sites like the piratebay, demonoid, and other file sharing sites need to be blocked or shut down.
I see no reason for the copyrights to ever expire at all.
If everything is perpetually under copyright, it becomes nearly impossible to create anything "new." Originally, copyright terms under the Statute of Anne (1710) were 14 years for new works. That worked quite well for quite a long time.
Imagine the absurdity of John Milton being unable to publish Paradise Lost because the books of the Bible were held under copyright by one of the "companies" of the time.
When copyrights get longer and longer, absurdities like that grow more and more numerous.
I was fairly convinced after reading this that even if SOPA, or something sufficiently similar is passed it will be struck down as unconstitutional fairly quickly. For all intents and purposes it is dead.
They always say this but never back it up with anything. Proof please. Who are they costing money?
The mere fact these sites exist should be proof enough that it's lucrative to sell counterfeit/pirated material. If a single person downloads or purchases one item that they would have purchased otherwise then money has been lost.
As far as who loses..... everyone. The company has less business which means they need to employ less people. Those people need less material and equipment to to do their job so those companies supplying that material need less people. It's a cascading effect.
You may argue industry figures are inflated and you would probably would be right but the bottom line is they lose money.
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.
