Unconfigured Ad Widget

JLB · 01-18-2012, 03:01 PM

History tells us our government will regulate what the people will not.

Well, then de-regulate it.

That the Internet can be abusive is not even debatable. People tend to do on the Internet things they would never do in person, feeling protected by presumed anonymity. Oh, that's right . . . this is an internet forum . . . we all already know that.

Presley · 01-18-2012, 03:14 PM

Since I grew up without internet, this isn't that big of a deal to me. My son, however, is very passionate about stopping this-age 15. I am not purchasing from the companies who support it, but doubt I will put much more energy into it.

I know my daughter's dance crew had things removed from various sites several times because they didn't have permission to publish dancing to the pieces of music. Since it is basically free advertising for the music, I think they are making a mistake, but bottom line, all big companies only care about making the most money.

bigfrank · 01-18-2012, 03:16 PM

I got an email from my son this morning with the same link you provided. It is all over his School which is a Computer engineering School. I was going to post it here but you beat me to it.

JLB · 01-18-2012, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by bigfrank

I got an email from my son this morning with the same link you provided. It is all over his School which is a Computer engineering School. I was going to post it here but you beat me to it.

"Computer engineering school" sure has a different meaning from when I graduated from the university credited with developing the first computer.

Back then there were only two forms of character assassination and personal criticism . . . to your face or behind your back. In most cases, in either form, they normally did not linger for eternity, for the world to see.

BoardGirl · 01-19-2012, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Presley View Post

Since I grew up without internet, this isn't that big of a deal to me. My son, however, is very passionate about stopping this-age 15. I am not purchasing from the companies who support it, but doubt I will put much more energy into it.

I know my daughter's dance crew had things removed from various sites several times because they didn't have permission to publish dancing to the pieces of music. Since it is basically free advertising for the music, I think they are making a mistake, but bottom line, all big companies only care about making the most money.

I think you miss the point.

My x-husband is a singer-songwriter. What seems to you to be 'free advertising' is really depriving him of a credit and royalties and could actually harm his material.

he holds the copyright, he owns the material, he gets to permit or not permit dissemination of his material. "Free advertising" can be a bad thing if the dancing that went with the owned material was not true to the artist's vision. This is why the artist gets to decide. YOU don't get to decide to advertise someone elses product "for free."

You are not depriving a giant company of $$, you are depriving the little creative guy of deciding when/where his material is showcased.

Honestly, getting permission is not that hard. Better than to promote the "I found it and can use it any damned way I want" mindset. This is not going to go away and fines/court judgements that Napster users ran into some time ago was just the start. I'm surprised it has taken this long.

rikkis_playpen · 01-20-2012, 01:19 PM

When the music industry begins to police itself and stop artists who routinely use "sampling" in their music, maybe I'll pay more attention... Of course, when those "artists" are creating profits- it doesn't seem to ruffle so many feathers.

The target should be commercial applications of copyrighted material, which is already subject to existing laws and when discovered currently allows the owner of that copyright to litigate. Creating new laws to give the government unprecedented control over free speech is not a reasonable answer. I don't believe for one second that politicians have a "stuggling artist" as their muse for this nasty bit of trickery.

The idea that some teenager on YouTube doing a dance routine to Lady Gaga gives the US government the right to shut down any website is just ridiculous.

BoardGirl · 01-20-2012, 02:43 PM

I also think gov't is going too far (bordering on censorship, but unfair burden to content hosts is my biggest problem with it), but am in favor of sustaining creator rights. No, I also don't think preserving income to a struggling artist is the intent, I think they are attempting to prevent the problem by having content providers as police, which is not their role. But, it does get right to the John Q Public problem of it. "Gosh, I didn't know!" and down it goes. Easy, done with, no hassles, no litigation. I believe that was teh intent, have the websites police their content. Major nightmare.

Commercial apps using copyrighted material - definitely a problem, should know better and be penalized. The young girl that was heavily penalized in the Napster thing? Well, that's too bad, and probably she was too young to understand what she was doing was wrong (having likely been taught that sharing is good), but I don't get how that whole thing was just forgotten?? The issue simply went dormant for a while, and now it's back.

Personal use in one's home is not a problem. Play anything you want, dance, sing, tumble in pajamas while drinking martinis, who cares. But it seems common sense to me to not take the work of another to publish myself without permission. And, yes, uploading to the internet is publishing.

You hear the warning during televised sporting events - for private use of our audience, any other use prohibited without the express written permission of (insert owner, say, NFL). If I dvr'd a game in its entirety and uploaded it, that's a violation. Seems pretty obvious to me.

JWC · 01-20-2012, 04:43 PM

I signed the petition. It looks like neither PIPA nor COPA are going to pass. This came up in the GOP debate last night and all 4 candidates are opposed to PIPA and COPA.

PigsDad · 01-20-2012, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by BoardGirl View Post

Honestly, getting permission is not that hard.

I beg to differ.

Several years back, I was putting together a video for a youth group at our church. This was before video editing via computers was as simple and cheap as it is now -- specialized hardware, etc. Therefore, the concept of a non-professional creating an edited video set to some music in the backgroud was new to most people.

We wanted to use some popular Christian rock songs for the video, since those had special meaning for this group. I went out and bought the music (so I had a legal copy), and then I tried to find a way to get "permission" to legally distribute a few copies (~20, the size of the youth group) of the video that included portions of the song tracks. What I found out was that is is virtually impossible for a non-professional to get that permission. I spent several weeks and it all ended in dead ends. In the end, I did what everyone else does today: simply go ahead with the project. I felt I gave a reasonable effort, and since it was a non-commercial project and I legally owned copies of the songs, I was fine with that.

I am very supportive of defending one's copyrights, but there has to be a better way to get usage permission. If there was a way to go to a web site, choose a song, and simply pay $X per copy, I would do that in a flash. But there isn't. Using songs in a video is not covered under your rights of owning a legal copy, so just buying X copies of the song does nothing for you, legally.

As to the proposed laws that are being protested, they are not the right way to combat the digital rights issues. They are simply a way for government and the entertainment companies to censor the internet with no due process. That is simply un-American.

BoardGirl: If you know of a simple way for the common person to get permission to use a song in a non-commercial video, I would love to know how it can be done.

Kurt

vintner · 01-21-2012, 10:45 AM

[QUOTE=rikkis_playpen;480430
The idea that some teenager on YouTube doing a dance routine to Lady Gaga gives the US government the right to shut down any website is just ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

That was not absolutely not the point of this, and it has been said that there is not legislation to control this type of activity. It is profiting from stealing that this is trying to control. And that is primarily aimed at foreign links and piracy.

The 4m deletes links for links that send people to free pirated movies. When the movies were created, they were copyrighted. In a sense, the 4m is doing what the legislation would do, eliminate links to pirate sites or the eliminating the pirate websites. Okay, that is stretching it, but why should they profit from someone else's work?

I have published articles on wine filtration or chemical use that has been pirated to other sites. I am not concerned on this because I do not make my living from this, but if I did, and my articles were copied and profiting for someone else and not me, I loose my income. This is where and why this would be a good law.

Yes, the law needs to be written right to now go too far, but it needs a start.

Or, accept that your online material is fair game for being copied and reused for someone elses profit.

rikkis_playpen · 01-21-2012, 01:23 PM

Do you trust some anonymous government official to be able to use good judgement in determining what sites are shut down? Or where to draw the line of what is a reasonable use of this power? Do you believe that small businesses will have an effective and inexpensive means to fight and overturn such a decision if good judgement is not used?

Regardless of the laws on the books, criminals will continue to commit crimes.. We seem this everyday as these timeshare con artists change disguises to stay ahead of the authorities, and in most cases operate without any real impediment. If the government shuts down a criminal website, can you honestly believe that it would not be back up the next day under a new domain? The only people who would be stopped would be those who had no intent to do harm, because those would be the only sites and companies that would not just reinvent themselves.

Take this example:

This website has thousands of outside links.. Is it reasonable to expect the owner or administrator of this website to continuously monitor every link? What happens if the website that was linked to from a discussion goes out of business, and the new "owner" changes the site to promote pirated material. This is a common practice. It happens with websites that generated traffic as well as toll free numbers. The original company goes out of business and another business comes in and creates something that may be totally unrelated, in the hope that somebody takes the bait.

Does that make this site responsible because nobody went back to old posts to review links? Does that allow some government bureaucrat to make the decision on whether or not this site should be available to the public? How about if that individual was burned on a timeshare tour and has a preconceived notion that everything involving timeshare is a scam? What if that politician receives large contributions from timeshare developers who would prefer that a site such as this did not exist?

These "what if" scenarios may seem far fetched, but there is nothing more effective at creating the ridiculous than a large bureaucracy.

In my opinion, the only reason for individuals in a free society to give added power to government is to ensure the safety of its citizens. We've been in a constant state of giving away power and choice to the government since the terrorist attacks, and at this point our "elected" leaders in both parties seem to be hungry for more power and believe they are entitled to just take it.

This type of "film piracy" does have an economic impact. Ultimately that cost is passed on to the consumer in the same way that a supermarket passes on the cost of shop lifting to the consumer. Does it bother me that I have to pay a few dollars more to see a movie because some bozo at the flea market is selling pirated copies from China- sure it does.. Is that worth giving the government control over the internet?

Not even close!

Hobbitess · 01-21-2012, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by rikkis_playpen View Post

These "what if" scenarios may seem far fetched, but there is nothing more effective at creating the ridiculous than a large bureaucracy.

In my opinion, the only reason for individuals in a free society to give added power to government is to ensure the safety of its citizens. We've been in a constant state of giving away power and choice to the government since the terrorist attacks, and at this point our "elected" leaders in both parties seem to be hungry for more power and believe they are entitled to just take it.

This type of "film piracy" does have an economic impact. Ultimately that cost is passed on to the consumer in the same way that a supermarket passes on the cost of shop lifting to the consumer. Does it bother me that I have to pay a few dollars more to see a movie because some bozo at the flea market is selling pirated copies from China- sure it does.. Is that worth giving the government control over the internet?

Not even close!

Agreed. Going on the responses to Salman Khan's video summary that I read this morning, the debate is basically over whether people trust the government to show restraint or not. I don't.

SOPA and PIPA - YouTube

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Announcement

Proposed legislation to give government more control over internet content..

Proposed legislation to give government more control over internet content..

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment