Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Because our prisons aren't nearly full enough, let's make streaming an old episode of Friends a felony   (rawstory.com) divider line 173
    More: Stupid, U.S. Department of Commerce, convicts, Obama administration, digital economy, Amy Klobuchar, willful violation, performing rights, felony  
•       •       •

4283 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Aug 2013 at 5:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



173 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-07 04:46:58 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
It's not so much prison as it is fines, subby
 
2013-08-07 04:48:05 PM  
I agree but for different reasons.
 
2013-08-07 04:51:41 PM  
Hmm I wonder if that would be used against the people who had their webcams on their police scanners during the Boston manhunt.  Streaming the audio so we all knew well in advance of the plebes watching network and cable news that everything had gone down.
 
2013-08-07 04:54:20 PM  
You know... I voted for Obama

/but I'm getting pretty damned tired of the bullsh*t coming out of his administration
//not that it couldn't be worse
 
2013-08-07 04:56:25 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: You know... I voted for Obama

/but I'm getting pretty damned tired of the bullsh*t coming out of his administration
//not that it couldn't be worse


It's not without precedent, the unauthorized borrowing of a buggy whip is still punishable by hanging in most states.
 
2013-08-07 04:59:32 PM  
Could this BE any more stupid?
 
2013-08-07 05:03:13 PM  
What should be the real crime here is Hollywood bribing the government into making our lives a living hell.
 
2013-08-07 05:04:08 PM  

James!: I agree but for different reasons.


It's a gateway program.  It's well known that people who illegally stream Friends to on to illegally stream NCIS: Los Angeles.
 
2013-08-07 05:59:39 PM  
Thank the gods I live in a country that hasn't (yet) totally rolled over for corporate interests.

/Don't worry, we'll catch up
//Harper's still got a good couple of years left in his "mandate"
 
2013-08-07 06:00:17 PM  

DanZero: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 259x194]
It's not so much prison as it is fines, subby


I wonder if the proposed fines will be more or less, proportionally-speaking, than any fines that the SEC gives banks for, say, convincing the ratings agencies to improperly rate shiatty mortgage bonds as Triple A.
 
2013-08-07 06:00:30 PM  
Oh great, another "all copyright is bad" thread
 
2013-08-07 06:01:45 PM  

lacrossestar83: Oh great, another "all copyright is bad" thread


Oh great, another "any lengths to protect a failing business model, including throwing more people in jail for nothing" thread.

Idiot.
 
2013-08-07 06:03:41 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: What should be the real crime here is Hollywood bribing the government into making our lives a living hell.


if they would like to go back to the original rules about public domain, i would be happy to discuss more stringent rules on various forms of piracy. i think thats fair?
 
2013-08-07 06:04:19 PM  
Well, it had better be federal prison. California's are so crowded that we're releasing 10,000 dangerous prisoners back into the communities. Not much chance that we're going to take up space with some guy who's just causing some Hollywood copyright holder to not receive the price of his morning Starbuck's half-caf mocha frappuccino.
 
2013-08-07 06:05:37 PM  
So you're not sentenced to a day, a week, a month, or even a year?

/Because felonies are punishable by over a year imprisonment, heh heh
 
2013-08-07 06:08:08 PM  
jjorsett: California's are so crowded that we're releasing 10,000 dangerous  non violent prisoners back into the communities.
ftfy. Oh, the state is trying to get around that by sending them to private prisons instead.
 
2013-08-07 06:10:13 PM  

DanZero: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 259x194]
It's not so much prison as it is fines, subby


Riddle me this, Danman - what happens when you can't pay the hefty fines?

/subby
 
2013-08-07 06:11:55 PM  

lacrossestar83: Oh great, another "all copyright is bad" thread


Why should I have to investigate if some streaming service bought the rights to what they are showing and how would I go about doing that? I have no idea if Netflix, Amazon or whatever other VOD service has the legal right to show.  It is an unfair burden to put on the user to have to research this themselves just as it was an unfair burden for Youtube and other user generated video services to do the same and this was recognised in the DMCA.  Video services are not responsible for breached of copyright which they host as long as they take action on DMCA copyright notices.

Why should guilt pass over the middle man hosting service and go straight from the uploader to the streamer/downloader.
 
2013-08-07 06:16:44 PM  
Well subby Holden is actually working on making court minimums for non-violent crimes go away and shortening time for drug use  and it is also support by many conservative groups. But that's real politics and not a trollerific partisan headline so you won't see it greened here.
 
2013-08-07 06:17:20 PM  

Corvus: Well subby Holden is actually working on making court minimums for non-violent crimes go away and shortening time for drug use  and it is also support by many conservative groups. But that's real politics and not a trollerific partisan headline so you won't see it greened here.


I meant Holder
 
2013-08-07 06:20:50 PM  

you are a puppet: So you're not sentenced to a day, a week, a month, or even a year?

/Because felonies are punishable by over a year imprisonment, heh heh


When you get out...

I'll be there for you.
 
2013-08-07 06:24:24 PM  
It's a pretty slick way to keep the young and tech-savvy off the voting rolls forever.
 
2013-08-07 06:24:37 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama.
This is NOT the CHANGE we were HOPING for.


I always wondered what happens when a conservative shill has to choose between bashing Obama and promoting incarceration for non-violent crimes and the unalienable rights of corporations.

Interesting. It seems the shill decides that bashing Obama is more important. Of course, this could be an outlier. Let's see what other shills have to say in this thread.
 
2013-08-07 06:26:59 PM  

alienated: jjorsett: California's are so crowded that we're releasing 10,000 dangerous  non violent prisoners back into the communities.
ftfy. Oh, the state is trying to get around that by sending them to private prisons instead.


The "non-violent" ones (in reality, just those whose last conviction was for a non-violent crime, regardless of any earlier murders, rapes, robberies, etc. on their rap sheets, and regardless of whether the most recent one was a plea bargain down from something violent) are already gone. The court said, "Not good enough" and we're now ejecting the truly bad dudes. Even Jerry Brown, Mr. Anti-incarceration himself, fought this latest order, to no avail.
 
2013-08-07 06:29:05 PM  

Corvus: Well subby Holder is actually working on making court minimums for non-violent crimes go away and shortening time for drug use


Given his popularity with the party that controls the House, I'm sure that will go well. Wake me up when someone with some actual juice on the Hill gets behind the effort.
 
2013-08-07 06:29:56 PM  
OK, who is the target here? The person illegally hosting the streaming material, or the person watching it, who may not know that the stream is not legit?

Also, there should be some kind of clause that if shiat is just sitting around and there is demand for it, if the owners don't eventually get off of their asses and make it available, it should be legal. I'm sick of wanting to see something that I know should be available, but not having it anywhere online.
 
2013-08-07 06:33:13 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Could this BE any more stupid?


You had to say that out loud didn't you?

Now they're going to find a way...
 
2013-08-07 06:35:06 PM  
I think watching American TV should be a felony. The punishment would be a frontal lobotomy. It wouldn't actually harm the perp because his brain would be farked anyway. But it would allow him to cut calories by not feeding a useless organ.
 
2013-08-07 06:36:44 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Oh great, another "any lengths to protect a failing business model, including throwing more people in jail for nothing" thread.

Idiot.


Nice!  Now tell me the one about how copyright causes people to not write their own songs, or "kill innovation" or whatever.  That's my favorite!

Faddy:Why should I have to investigate if some streaming service bought the rights to what they are showing and how would I go about doing that? I have no idea if Netflix, Amazon or whatever other VOD service has the legal right to show.
Are you really equating Netflix and Amazon to ATDHE?

It is an unfair burden to put on the user to have to research this themselves just as it was an unfair burden for Youtube and other user generated video services to do the same and this was recognised in the DMCA.  Video services are not responsible for breached of copyright which they host as long as they take action on DMCA copyright notices.
Totes.  Fortunately, the "unfair burden" magically disappeared, taking the unauthorized content with it!

Why should guilt pass over the middle man hosting service and go straight from the uploader to the streamer/downloader.
Ask Kim Dotcom.
 
2013-08-07 06:38:46 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama.
This is NOT the CHANGE we were HOPING for.


"THIS is not the CHANGE we were HOPING for"
 
2013-08-07 06:39:41 PM  
What people fail to acknowledge is that we should be serving pre-emptive terms in jail these days.  It's a known fact, there's absolutely no way for someone to live their lives without breaking a law.  The codes are so poorly written, so convoluted and beyond the understanding of day to day people that it's unavoidable.  In fact, you're probably breaking a law at this very moment.

So, from the moment of birth, we should put everybody in prison, until they're at least 18 or 21 years old.  That way, when they get out, they will have pre-emptively served time for whatever infractions....you could in theory smoke a single joint, murder 3 people or download a movie and never have to go to jail for any of it.  However, if you do a crime for which you haven't served the time already, then your punishment will be death.
 
2013-08-07 06:43:24 PM  
So if I'm streaming anime that hasn't been brought to American Markets , I can be fined.

Wait wut!?
 
2013-08-07 06:43:34 PM  

Mikey1969: OK, who is the target here? The person illegally hosting the streaming material, or the person watching it, who may not know that the stream is not legit?

Also, there should be some kind of clause that if shiat is just sitting around and there is demand for it, if the owners don't eventually get off of their asses and make it available, it should be legal. I'm sick of wanting to see something that I know should be available, but not having it anywhere online.


That would require a major overhaul in copyright law... the type of overhaul that would actually release untold thousands of works into the public domain. But it will never happen as long as someone involved can get one penny in royalty every time Nick At Nite shows an episode, yet receive nothing from an iTunes or Amazon purchase.

/why an industry full of otherwise intelligent, tech-savvy types can't come up with a consumer-friendly-yet-profitable digital distribution system is completely beyond me
 
2013-08-07 06:47:06 PM  
If it only applied to Friends, I might actually be wholly in favor of this.
 
2013-08-07 06:49:18 PM  

jjorsett: alienated: jjorsett: California's are so crowded that we're releasing 10,000 dangerous  non violent prisoners back into the communities.
ftfy. Oh, the state is trying to get around that by sending them to private prisons instead.

The "non-violent" ones (in reality, just those whose last conviction was for a non-violent crime, regardless of any earlier murders, rapes, robberies, etc. on their rap sheets, and regardless of whether the most recent one was a plea bargain down from something violent) are already gone. The court said, "Not good enough" and we're now ejecting the truly bad dudes. Even Jerry Brown, Mr. Anti-incarceration himself, fought this latest order, to no avail.


As usual, there is what YOU say, then there is the real world:

The state also argued that dangerous criminals would have to be released in order to satisfy the panel's order, a claim the Supreme Court rejected.
 
2013-08-07 06:50:13 PM  

lacrossestar83: Nice! Now tell me the one about how copyright causes people to not write their own songs, or "kill innovation" or whatever. That's my favorite!


Tons of great art has been created by reimagining and reinterpreting the classics like Dickens and Shakespeare just to name two giants.  You know Disney will continue to fight their asses off to make sure no one can ever do that with Mickey Mouse.
 
2013-08-07 06:50:45 PM  
Wait, are we talking a Ross episode, or a Joey episode?  Because that makes a difference.

/Ross episode is execution.
 
2013-08-07 06:51:01 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: - Streaming a broadcast TV show should be legal

- Streaming live sporting events should be legal, as long as they're being shown on broadcast TV somewhere
- Streaming of PPV events should be illegal
-Streaming movies that have not been shown on broadcast TV should be illegal
-Streaming shows that are shown on HBO, Shotwime, etc should be illegal until after they are syndicated


While technically I'd side with the "copyrighted telecast" stuff, the Chicago Blackhawks' old owner changed my mind.  The NFL's blackout rules weren't helping win me over, either.
 
2013-08-07 06:51:37 PM  

lacrossestar83: Popcorn Johnny: - Streaming a broadcast TV show should be legal
- Streaming live sporting events should be legal, as long as they're being shown on broadcast TV somewhere
- Streaming of PPV events should be illegal
-Streaming movies that have not been shown on broadcast TV should be illegal
-Streaming shows that are shown on HBO, Shotwime, etc should be illegal until after they are syndicated

While technically typically* I'd side with the "copyrighted telecast" stuff, the Chicago Blackhawks' old owner changed my mind.  The NFL's blackout rules weren't helping win me over, either.


FTFM
 
2013-08-07 06:52:33 PM  
Streaming "Friends" shouldn't be a felony.

People need to know first-hand how vapid and hopeless the 1990s were.
 
2013-08-07 06:53:30 PM  

clkeagle: why an industry full of otherwise intelligent, tech-savvy types can't come up with a consumer-friendly-yet-profitable digital distribution system is completely beyond me


Exactly... It's insane.
 
2013-08-07 06:57:17 PM  

lacrossestar83: Nice! Now tell me the one about how copyright causes people to not write their own songs, or "kill innovation" or whatever. That's my favorite!


Want to know why the upcoming movie with Oprah is called "Lee Daniel's The Butler"?  Because a movie of the same title from 1916 (that's right, NINETEEN SIXTEEN) kept them from using it.
 
2013-08-07 07:03:27 PM  

James!: I agree but for different reasons.


lol
 
2013-08-07 07:04:04 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: You know... I voted for Obama

/but I'm getting pretty damned tired of the bullsh*t coming out of his administration
//not that it couldn't be worse


^THIS.  I've been accused of being a conservative plant by certain liberal farkers because I think that Obama is doing a shiatty job of being liberal and, among other irritating things, basically taking a dump on our civil liberties.

/didn't care for it when Bush did it either.
 
2013-08-07 07:04:34 PM  
ITT, the entertainment industry continues buying politicians to defend their dying business model. People will be fined or imprisoned for watching a stream of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.

Meanwhile, an entire generation is growing up to one day disregard gibberish concepts like "Intellectual Property." But for the time being, we will continue to get the whores we vote for.

/GPL or Copyleft, start using it or get out of the way
//No, I don't know how you'll make money off your IP. Progress was tough on buggy whip manufacturers, too.
 
2013-08-07 07:04:52 PM  

DanZero: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 259x194]
It's not so much prison as it is fines, subby


And, correct me if I'm wrong, a criminal record that follows the "felon" to the grave, preventing him or her from getting a job, certain utilities, student loans, travel opportunities, etc.  A bit much for watching a super low res stream of the last UFC card, I think.
 
2013-08-07 07:12:16 PM  
Didn't Obama already say 2 years ago that he would veto a bill like this? Isn't this just the same group of people just trying to push revised versions of SOPA and PIPA? I imagine Obama's response will be the same as it was in 2011.
 
2013-08-07 07:27:43 PM  
How in the hell am I going to watch 60s Batman without streaming!? I would buy that on DVD or Bluray if it was ever released!

/Adam West is my Batman!
 
2013-08-07 07:32:40 PM  

12349876: Tons of great art has been created by reimagining and reinterpreting the classics like Dickens and Shakespeare just to name two giants. You know Disney will continue to fight their asses off to make sure no one can ever do that with Mickey Mouse.


It will be interesting to see what they do next.  In the last couple of years, they pulled some stunts and got the copyrights renewed on Oswald the Lucky Rabbit (which they only recently acquired) and he's older than Mickey by several years.

Meanwhile, Paul McCartney is working to extend copyright in the UK another 50 years as a bunch of early Beatles stuff was in danger of falling out of copyright.
 
2013-08-07 07:40:24 PM  
Any streaming, copying, downloading, uploading, analogue and digital distribution, and broadcasting of "Friends" should be punishable with the strictest penalties available to our justice system.
 
2013-08-07 07:41:30 PM  

12349876: lacrossestar83: Nice! Now tell me the one about how copyright causes people to not write their own songs, or "kill innovation" or whatever. That's my favorite!

Tons of great art has been created by reimagining and reinterpreting the classics like Dickens and Shakespeare just to name two giants.  You know Disney will continue to fight their asses off to make sure no one can ever do that with Mickey Mouse.


i734.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-07 07:42:26 PM  
If they can't secure their content it's their problem, not ours.  Hang them.
 
2013-08-07 07:44:41 PM  

Gordon Bennett: 12349876: lacrossestar83: Nice! Now tell me the one about how copyright causes people to not write their own songs, or "kill innovation" or whatever. That's my favorite!

Tons of great art has been created by reimagining and reinterpreting the classics like Dickens and Shakespeare just to name two giants.  You know Disney will continue to fight their asses off to make sure no one can ever do that with Mickey Mouse.

[i734.photobucket.com image 200x183]


that mouse is actually having sex with the cheese!
 
2013-08-07 07:51:10 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Could this BE any more stupid?


+1
 
2013-08-07 07:53:31 PM  

Isitoveryet: Gordon Bennett: 12349876: lacrossestar83: Nice! Now tell me the one about how copyright causes people to not write their own songs, or "kill innovation" or whatever. That's my favorite!

Tons of great art has been created by reimagining and reinterpreting the classics like Dickens and Shakespeare just to name two giants.  You know Disney will continue to fight their asses off to make sure no one can ever do that with Mickey Mouse.

[i734.photobucket.com image 200x183]

that mouse is actually having sex with the cheese!


In glad you pointed it out. I'd missed it.
 
2013-08-07 07:54:25 PM  
 
2013-08-07 07:55:13 PM  

jjorsett: alienated: jjorsett: California's are so crowded that we're releasing 10,000 dangerous  non violent prisoners back into the communities.
ftfy. Oh, the state is trying to get around that by sending them to private prisons instead.

The "non-violent" ones (in reality, just those whose last conviction was for a non-violent crime, regardless of any earlier murders, rapes, robberies, etc. on their rap sheets, and regardless of whether the most recent one was a plea bargain down from something violent) are already gone. The court said, "Not good enough" and we're now ejecting the truly bad dudes. Even Jerry Brown, Mr. Anti-incarceration himself, fought this latest order, to no avail.


On the plus side, if you get busted today for some bullshiat charge, you're less likely to get a long sentence, and you'll probably do your time at the county jail---so your baby-momma can bring the kids to visiting hours more often.

It's a family-friendly policy, really.
 
2013-08-07 07:59:07 PM  

jjorsett: Well, it had better be federal prison. California's are so crowded that we're releasing 10,000 dangerous prisoners back into the communities. Not much chance that we're going to take up space with some guy who's just causing some Hollywood copyright holder to not receive the price of his morning Starbuck's half-caf mocha frappuccino.


EVERYTHING is dangerous to you and the rest of of the conservative bedwetting brigade. Boo! Muslims!

/Now go change your underwear.
 
2013-08-07 07:59:34 PM  

jjorsett: Well, it had better be federal prison. California's are so crowded that we're releasing 10,000 dangerous prisoners back into the communities.


Those are state-run prisons. And all of the dangerous criminals are being sent to county jails.
 
2013-08-07 08:00:43 PM  

lacrossestar83: Nice! Now tell me the one about how copyright causes people to not write their own songs, or "kill innovation" or whatever. That's my favorite!


data.whicdn.com

Nobody will ever be able to do this with, say, The Grapes of Wrath, thanks to the magic of perpetual copyright.
 
2013-08-07 08:05:04 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Smelly McUgly: tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama.
This is NOT the CHANGE we were HOPING for.

I always wondered what happens when a conservative shill has to choose between bashing Obama and promoting incarceration for non-violent crimes and the unalienable rights of corporations.

Interesting. It seems the shill decides that bashing Obama is more important. Of course, this could be an outlier. Let's see what other shills have to say in this thread.

Well, I always wondered what happens when people think that a person is a conservative.
Or that they are a shill.

I also always wondered why people like yourself make up things like saying that this is about incarceration.  Not all felonies result in incarceration.  Tax fraud is a felony and yet Rangel was never incarcerated.   Clinton's perjury is a felony and yet he was never incarcerated.


I'm sorry, could you stop with the monologue and go find some other shills? Let 'em know I'm running a study and I want to hear their opinions on this riveting question.
 
2013-08-07 08:07:26 PM  
It's a moo point.

/it's like a cow's opinion.
//it doesn't matter.
/// it's moo
 
2013-08-07 08:29:07 PM  
<B>Heartburnkid</B>

No, they will.  Fanfiction websites are fill of stories like those, albeit usually nowhere near as well written.

What they can't do is make any money doing it.  And although I freely admit to being biased as heck on this (because I probably could make a living off it if copyright law was different; I'm not nearly as good at original fiction yet) I think that's a real shame.  There are some wonderful works very closely inspired by pre-existing fiction - even Shakespeare did it - and if there was money in doing it, I think we'd see a lot more.
 
2013-08-07 08:31:22 PM  
So if someone posts copyrighted video on youtube and I just happen to watch that video before youtube pulls it down, I am a felon? I have to admit, I've probably done this numerous if not hundreds of times in one form or another.  I could be looking at life in prison?!
 
2013-08-07 08:40:13 PM  
Behold the result of bowing to certain unnamed and legally distinct rodent-like creatures from a realm known for prestidigitation.
 
2013-08-07 08:40:40 PM  

fusillade762: From two threads down:

The United States has the most people in prison by far of any country in the world. With 5% of the world's population, we have 25% of the world's prisoners - 2.3 million criminals. China with a population 4 times our size is second with 1.6 million people in prison.

Yeah, that's what we need: more people in jail.


Well, in our defense China executes alot more people. It's like a big Texas over there.
 
2013-08-07 08:42:27 PM  

yeegrek: DanZero: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 259x194]
It's not so much prison as it is fines, subby

And, correct me if I'm wrong, a criminal record that follows the "felon" to the grave, preventing him or her from getting a job, certain utilities, student loans, travel opportunities, etc.  A bit much for watching a super low res stream of the last UFC card, I think.


Ya, but Dana White's an ass so it's almost worth the risk.
 
2013-08-07 08:43:19 PM  

James!: I agree but for different reasons.


Yep yep yep...
 
2013-08-07 08:55:19 PM  
SIGH. The answer here is the same as it always has been to everything - don't be stupid and don't get caught. That simple rule has seen me through six Presidents (and counting) and two partisan congressional "revolutions."
 
2013-08-07 09:13:09 PM  
Aren't all episodes of Friends considered old?
 
2013-08-07 09:13:47 PM  
This isn't going to change anything. The future is Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, etc. Streaming is coming and it's all going to be legal. This just allows them to go after hobbyists (like those who offer episode of old Star Trek) and professional illegal streamers (like movie4k and others).

This is them throwing a bone to Hollywood. It makes them look like they're willing to help Hollywood, and the lawyers and lobbyists like it because it makes them look like they were able to get something done. But really, this won't change anything. I doubt we're going to see the EFF or any other group fight this.

It gives them teeth but what are they going to bite?
 
2013-08-07 09:15:04 PM  

Mikey1969: clkeagle: why an industry full of otherwise intelligent, tech-savvy types can't come up with a consumer-friendly-yet-profitable digital distribution system is completely beyond me

Exactly... It's insane.


The intelligent, tech-savvy types aren't the ones typically that make final decisions in the large media companies.
 
2013-08-07 09:29:00 PM  

mediablitz: The state also argued that dangerous criminals would have to be released in order to satisfy the panel's order, a claim the Supreme Court rejected


Oh goody, dueling quotations: "At the time of the original ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia issued a scathing dissent, saying violent criminals would be put back on the streets. Scalia dissented again in Friday's ruling, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito."

The dangerousness of these people isn't going to be determined by who gets a larger number of opinions for their side from a handful of people in black robes, but rather the death, blood, and suffering that will be the result of their release. Pray that you're not one of the unfortunate victims who'll be the ultimate 'votes' as to who is right.
 
2013-08-07 09:30:50 PM  

MisterRonbo: DanZero: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 259x194]
It's not so much prison as it is fines, subby

Riddle me this, Danman - what happens when you can't pay the hefty fines?

/subby


Not only that but correct me if I'm wrong, but don't felons also lose the right to vote?

I have a sticker on my car that says "vote, it's not illegal yet" and that seems to be more true every year.

http://www.ephemera-inc.com/stickers/other-random-stickers/vote-it-s- n ot-illegal-yet-sticker-1627.html
 
2013-08-07 09:31:55 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Nobody will ever be able to do this with, say, The Grapes of Wrath, thanks to the magic of perpetual copyright.


Actually they can, if they can claim fair use.  See for example, this book:

gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net

Of course, the fact that The Grapes of Wrath is still under copyright would mean that you might lose the case and have to pay a bunch of lawyers to appeal your case before you get to *do* any of that...
 
2013-08-07 09:32:31 PM  

KeatingFive: jjorsett: Well, it had better be federal prison. California's are so crowded that we're releasing 10,000 dangerous prisoners back into the communities. Not much chance that we're going to take up space with some guy who's just causing some Hollywood copyright holder to not receive the price of his morning Starbuck's half-caf mocha frappuccino.

EVERYTHING is dangerous to you and the rest of of the conservative bedwetting brigade. Boo! Muslims!

/Now go change your underwear.


Suddenly it's about Muslims. Non sequiturs are us.
 
2013-08-07 09:33:46 PM  

birdboy2000: <B>Heartburnkid</B>

No, they will.  Fanfiction websites are fill of stories like those, albeit usually nowhere near as well written.

What they can't do is make any money doing it.  And although I freely admit to being biased as heck on this (because I probably could make a living off it if copyright law was different; I'm not nearly as good at original fiction yet) I think that's a real shame.  There are some wonderful works very closely inspired by pre-existing fiction - even Shakespeare did it - and if there was money in doing it, I think we'd see a lot more.


Fair use doesn't mandate that you can't make money on it.  See, for example, what I just posted before I saw your comment.
 
2013-08-07 09:35:36 PM  

Mikey1969: Also, there should be some kind of clause that if shiat is just sitting around and there is demand for it, if the owners don't eventually get off of their asses and make it available, it should be legal. I'm sick of wanting to see something that I know should be available, but not having it anywhere online.


THIS. With digital downloads available (the content providers don't even have to create physical media), there should be no issue with releasing old and older movies, tv shows documentaries etc through amazon, NetFlix, Hulu and other outlets. Even if the studios set up their own streaming services, and made THEIR ENTIRE CATALOG (up to about a year ago or so) available on them.

For Disney, every movie and cartoon all the way back to before Steamboat Willie.
For 20th Century, all the way back to Gertie the Dinosaur (1914).
MGM, all the way back to Ben-Hur (silent, 1925)
And so on. This is why some people pirate stuff... they would pay for it if they could get it when and where and how they wanted it... but they can't so they bittorrent a copy someone painstakingly recorded from their HD cable, added chapters to and edited, then recompressed to fit on a dvd.

The studios are too stupid and beholden to their old business models, and missing out on a huge opportunity to make assloads of cash from an audience who may have never heard of some of the good sh*t they have in their vaults, stuff that's already bought and paid for many times over..
 
2013-08-07 09:35:50 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: You know... I voted for Obama

/but I'm getting pretty damned tired of the bullsh*t coming out of his administration
//not that it couldn't be worse


There's still time
 
2013-08-07 09:44:22 PM  

James!: I agree but for different reasons.

 
2013-08-07 09:46:33 PM  

jim32rr: MaudlinMutantMollusk: //not that it couldn't be worse

There's still time


Be fair, the only way it could get worse at this point is by an act of Congress.

And if there's one thing Congress ain't gonna do, it's act.
 
2013-08-07 09:47:24 PM  

rewind2846: Mikey1969: Also, there should be some kind of clause that if shiat is just sitting around and there is demand for it, if the owners don't eventually get off of their asses and make it available, it should be legal. I'm sick of wanting to see something that I know should be available, but not having it anywhere online.

THIS. With digital downloads available (the content providers don't even have to create physical media), there should be no issue with releasing old and older movies, tv shows documentaries etc through amazon, NetFlix, Hulu and other outlets. Even if the studios set up their own streaming services, and made THEIR ENTIRE CATALOG (up to about a year ago or so) available on them.

For Disney, every movie and cartoon all the way back to before Steamboat Willie.
For 20th Century, all the way back to Gertie the Dinosaur (1914).
MGM, all the way back to Ben-Hur (silent, 1925)
And so on. This is why some people pirate stuff... they would pay for it if they could get it when and where and how they wanted it... but they can't so they bittorrent a copy someone painstakingly recorded from their HD cable, added chapters to and edited, then recompressed to fit on a dvd.

The studios are too stupid and beholden to their old business models, and missing out on a huge opportunity to make assloads of cash from an audience who may have never heard of some of the good sh*t they have in their vaults, stuff that's already bought and paid for many times over..


Well, Disney thinks they're being cute by playing that 'We're putting it back in the vault' game. I play along by only buying their shiat used.

Fark Disney...
 
2013-08-07 09:49:47 PM  

Strolpol: If it only applied to Friends, I might actually be wholly in favor of this.


Came for this, leaving satisfied.
 
2013-08-07 09:59:44 PM  
Half assed measures.
Just kill them.  Solves all sorts of problems all at once.
 
2013-08-07 10:03:49 PM  

tlchwi02: Marcus Aurelius: What should be the real crime here is Hollywood bribing the government into making our lives a living hell.

if they would like to go back to the original rules about public domain, i would be happy to discuss more stringent rules on various forms of piracy. i think thats fair?


Indeed. Copyright was supposed to be for a limited time, and now for all practical purposes it's indefinite. Since the copyright holders haven't kept their end of the bargain, the public should be under no obligation to hold up theirs.
 
2013-08-07 10:04:57 PM  
Out of curiosity, is it easy for them to investigate what your "streaming" and determine if it's illegal?

/asking for a friend...
 
2013-08-07 10:08:19 PM  
Many forms of piracy are wildly over punished, and this sad state doesnt look like its changing any time soon.

Lets not pretend piracy is not a crime, or that you are owed anything, but the penalties for these actions are just insane.
 
2013-08-07 10:15:15 PM  

yeegrek: DanZero: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 259x194]
It's not so much prison as it is fines, subby

And, correct me if I'm wrong, a criminal record that follows the "felon" to the grave, preventing him or her from getting a job, certain utilities, student loans, travel opportunities, etc.  A bit much for watching a super low res stream of the last UFC card, I think.


Not to mention a ban on owning a gun.

This is why I say I don't have a problem with people convicted of *NONVIOLENT* felonies owning guns.  Because we just have way too many things that qualify these days.
 
2013-08-07 10:23:45 PM  
floridasolicitor.files.wordpress.com

Well it has precedent since the illegal copying of VHS has been a felony for over 30 years and illegally downloading or streaming a movie is essentially the same thing.
 
2013-08-07 10:28:45 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Smelly McUgly: tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama.
This is NOT the CHANGE we were HOPING for.

I always wondered what happens when a conservative shill has to choose between bashing Obama and promoting incarceration for non-violent crimes and the unalienable rights of corporations.

Interesting. It seems the shill decides that bashing Obama is more important. Of course, this could be an outlier. Let's see what other shills have to say in this thread.

Well, I always wondered what happens when people think that a person is a conservative.
Or that they are a shill.

I also always wondered why people like yourself make up things like saying that this is about incarceration.  Not all felonies result in incarceration.  Tax fraud is a felony and yet Rangel was never incarcerated.   Clinton's perjury is a felony and yet he was never incarcerated.


On this tab, the Fark Democrat Brigade will defend Obama and anyone with a D after their name at any cost, and any criticism of anything related to anyone with a D after their name HAS to be by a conservative. You are lucky you actually got that response, instead of the usual "BOTH SIDES ARE BAD SO VOTE REPUBLICANS" that the mouth breathers usually use.
 
2013-08-07 10:39:15 PM  

dittybopper: yeegrek: DanZero: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 259x194]
It's not so much prison as it is fines, subby

And, correct me if I'm wrong, a criminal record that follows the "felon" to the grave, preventing him or her from getting a job, certain utilities, student loans, travel opportunities, etc.  A bit much for watching a super low res stream of the last UFC card, I think.

Not to mention a ban on owning a gun.

This is why I say I don't have a problem with people convicted of *NONVIOLENT* felonies owning guns.  Because we just have way too many things that qualify these days.


I'll go further than you on that.  If someone has served their sentence (including any parole or probation) they should be allowed to vote and own a gun.  If we're so skeered that they're still a criminal perhaps they should still be in prison.
 
2013-08-07 10:43:04 PM  

Mikey1969: Well, Disney thinks they're being cute by playing that 'We're putting it back in the vault' game. I play along by only buying their shiat used.

Fark Disney...



That "Disney Vault" bullshiat was the bane of my existence when I worked in the video rental business (back in the days of VHS). People would come in looking for, say,  Peter Pan  because their kid was 8 years old and had never seen it. I'd have to tell them "Sorry, it's not available. It's in the Disney Vault."

They'd get pissed and say,  "Well, didn't you guys get it before they put it in the Vault?"

"Yes, we did." I'd answer, "But then some jerk of a Disney collector stole our copy because the movie was no longer available for purchase thanks to it being in the Vault. So now we don't have a copy, and we can't get  another copy until Disney opens the Vault on that movie in about ten years."

"But little Timmy will be 18 then!"

"Yep. Go tell Disney about it. As if they give a damn."


The Vault is Disney's cheap-ass way of creating a forced "collectible" status on their movies and increasing their value and sales when the do finally release one from The Vault. It's shiatty business, and they keep doing it. They still do that shiat today, and it's still just as annoying to people who have little kids NOW who want to see Disney classics NOW... Not in five or ten years.
 
2013-08-07 10:44:25 PM  

12349876: Want to know why the upcoming movie with Oprah is called "Lee Daniel's The Butler"?  Because a movie of the same title from 1916 (that's right, NINETEEN SIXTEEN) kept them from using it.

Trademark ≠ copyright

And regarding your comments below (my iPad is having trouble with typing below a second quoted comment here), I do not support retroactive extensions of copyright term.  I don't think it's unreasonable to have lifetime protection of your works plus some amount of time after your death, but it's unfair to keep lobbying for effectively permanent copyright protection.

12349876: lacrossestar83: Nice! Now tell me the one about how copyright causes people to not write their own songs, or "kill innovation" or whatever. That's my favorite!

Tons of great art has been created by reimagining and reinterpreting the classics like Dickens and Shakespeare just to name two giants.  You know Disney will continue to fight their asses off to make sure no one can ever do that with Mickey Mouse.

 
2013-08-07 10:46:11 PM  

dennysgod: [floridasolicitor.files.wordpress.com image 450x300]

Well it has precedent since the illegal copying of VHS has been a felony for over 30 years and illegally downloading or streaming a movie is essentially the same thing.


No.  Actually, no it isn't.  You have to copy a certain number of woks and they have to be worth at least a certain amount for that to kick in.

/I'm not fixing that typo.  It's too funny.
 
2013-08-07 10:47:29 PM  

machoprogrammer: tenpoundsofcheese: Smelly McUgly: tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama.
This is NOT the CHANGE we were HOPING for.

I always wondered what happens when a conservative shill has to choose between bashing Obama and promoting incarceration for non-violent crimes and the unalienable rights of corporations.

Interesting. It seems the shill decides that bashing Obama is more important. Of course, this could be an outlier. Let's see what other shills have to say in this thread.

Well, I always wondered what happens when people think that a person is a conservative.
Or that they are a shill.

I also always wondered why people like yourself make up things like saying that this is about incarceration.  Not all felonies result in incarceration.  Tax fraud is a felony and yet Rangel was never incarcerated.   Clinton's perjury is a felony and yet he was never incarcerated.

On this tab, the Fark Democrat Brigade will defend Obama and anyone with a D after their name at any cost, and any criticism of anything related to anyone with a D after their name HAS to be by a conservative. You are lucky you actually got that response, instead of the usual "BOTH SIDES ARE BAD SO VOTE REPUBLICANS" that the mouth breathers usually use.


You just told Lance Armstrong "Hey don't worry champ, these dumb trolls will accuse anyone of using steroids!" Stick to the wrestling threads, simpleton.
 
2013-08-07 10:51:28 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Mikey1969: Well, Disney thinks they're being cute by playing that 'We're putting it back in the vault' game. I play along by only buying their shiat used.

Fark Disney...


That "Disney Vault" bullshiat was the bane of my existence when I worked in the video rental business (back in the days of VHS). People would come in looking for, say,  Peter Pan  because their kid was 8 years old and had never seen it. I'd have to tell them "Sorry, it's not available. It's in the Disney Vault."

They'd get pissed and say,  "Well, didn't you guys get it before they put it in the Vault?"

"Yes, we did." I'd answer, "But then some jerk of a Disney collector stole our copy because the movie was no longer available for purchase thanks to it being in the Vault. So now we don't have a copy, and we can't get  another copy until Disney opens the Vault on that movie in about ten years."

"But little Timmy will be 18 then!"

"Yep. Go tell Disney about it. As if they give a damn."


The Vault is Disney's cheap-ass way of creating a forced "collectible" status on their movies and increasing their value and sales when the do finally release one from The Vault. It's shiatty business, and they keep doing it. They still do that shiat today, and it's still just as annoying to people who have little kids NOW who want to see Disney classics NOW... Not in five or ten years.


Well Disney may be a bunch of dicks, but really your childhood need not be defined by whether or not you see Peter Pan or any other Disney "classic" for that matter.

Having said that, Peter Pan came out 60 years ago - it should be in the public domain by now.
 
2013-08-07 10:52:03 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Could this BE any more stupid?


Yes.
Enter:

The War on Piracy.
 
2013-08-07 10:54:08 PM  

ilambiquated: I think watching American TV should be a felony. The punishment would be a frontal lobotomy. It wouldn't actually harm the perp because his brain would be farked anyway. But it would allow him to cut calories by not feeding a useless organ.


that's why they call it The Boob Tube
 
2013-08-07 10:54:42 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: tlchwi02: Marcus Aurelius: What should be the real crime here is Hollywood bribing the government into making our lives a living hell.

if they would like to go back to the original rules about public domain, i would be happy to discuss more stringent rules on various forms of piracy. i think thats fair?

Indeed. Copyright was supposed to be for a limited time, and now for all practical purposes it's indefinite. Since the copyright holders haven't kept their end of the bargain, the public should be under no obligation to hold up theirs.


You're punishing everyone for the actions of a few unreasonable, douchey copyright owners.  Torrent the hell out of Disney and Sonny Bono if you want to attack the source, but it's unfair to the reasonable writers and artists to call for a complete repeal of copyright law.
 
2013-08-07 10:59:48 PM  
Gotta love how much sway the entertainment industry has over our government
 
2013-08-07 11:00:21 PM  

you are a puppet: machoprogrammer: tenpoundsofcheese: Smelly McUgly: tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama.
This is NOT the CHANGE we were HOPING for.

I always wondered what happens when a conservative shill has to choose between bashing Obama and promoting incarceration for non-violent crimes and the unalienable rights of corporations.

Interesting. It seems the shill decides that bashing Obama is more important. Of course, this could be an outlier. Let's see what other shills have to say in this thread.

Well, I always wondered what happens when people think that a person is a conservative.
Or that they are a shill.

I also always wondered why people like yourself make up things like saying that this is about incarceration.  Not all felonies result in incarceration.  Tax fraud is a felony and yet Rangel was never incarcerated.   Clinton's perjury is a felony and yet he was never incarcerated.

On this tab, the Fark Democrat Brigade will defend Obama and anyone with a D after their name at any cost, and any criticism of anything related to anyone with a D after their name HAS to be by a conservative. You are lucky you actually got that response, instead of the usual "BOTH SIDES ARE BAD SO VOTE REPUBLICANS" that the mouth breathers usually use.

You just told Lance Armstrong "Hey don't worry champ, these dumb trolls will accuse anyone of using steroids!" Stick to the wrestling threads, simpleton.


Aww, is someone upset that I said something bad about their political team's fanboys?
 
2013-08-07 11:00:28 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Mikey1969: Well, Disney thinks they're being cute by playing that 'We're putting it back in the vault' game. I play along by only buying their shiat used.

Fark Disney...


That "Disney Vault" bullshiat was the bane of my existence when I worked in the video rental business (back in the days of VHS). People would come in looking for, say,  Peter Pan  because their kid was 8 years old and had never seen it. I'd have to tell them "Sorry, it's not available. It's in the Disney Vault."

They'd get pissed and say,  "Well, didn't you guys get it before they put it in the Vault?"

"Yes, we did." I'd answer, "But then some jerk of a Disney collector stole our copy because the movie was no longer available for purchase thanks to it being in the Vault. So now we don't have a copy, and we can't get  another copy until Disney opens the Vault on that movie in about ten years."

"But little Timmy will be 18 then!"

"Yep. Go tell Disney about it. As if they give a damn."


The Vault is Disney's cheap-ass way of creating a forced "collectible" status on their movies and increasing their value and sales when the do finally release one from The Vault. It's shiatty business, and they keep doing it. They still do that shiat today, and it's still just as annoying to people who have little kids NOW who want to see Disney classics NOW... Not in five or ten years.


Yeah, I'm not a big fan of being manipulated that way. I like almost nothing about Disney, and 'The Vault' is one of the reasons I cringe whenever they buy a property like The Muppets or Star Wars. So far, so good, but if they try that Vault crap with those franchises, I'll torch every Disney property on the planet.

I swear, Walt is spinning in his grave fast enough to travel in time.
 
2013-08-07 11:04:25 PM  

machoprogrammer: you are a puppet: machoprogrammer: tenpoundsofcheese: Smelly McUgly: tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama.
This is NOT the CHANGE we were HOPING for.

I always wondered what happens when a conservative shill has to choose between bashing Obama and promoting incarceration for non-violent crimes and the unalienable rights of corporations.

Interesting. It seems the shill decides that bashing Obama is more important. Of course, this could be an outlier. Let's see what other shills have to say in this thread.

Well, I always wondered what happens when people think that a person is a conservative.
Or that they are a shill.

I also always wondered why people like yourself make up things like saying that this is about incarceration.  Not all felonies result in incarceration.  Tax fraud is a felony and yet Rangel was never incarcerated.   Clinton's perjury is a felony and yet he was never incarcerated.

On this tab, the Fark Democrat Brigade will defend Obama and anyone with a D after their name at any cost, and any criticism of anything related to anyone with a D after their name HAS to be by a conservative. You are lucky you actually got that response, instead of the usual "BOTH SIDES ARE BAD SO VOTE REPUBLICANS" that the mouth breathers usually use.

You just told Lance Armstrong "Hey don't worry champ, these dumb trolls will accuse anyone of using steroids!" Stick to the wrestling threads, simpleton.

Aww, is someone upset that I said something bad about their political team's fanboys?


I don't know, are you? Your post sounded pretty mad. I was just explaining who you were replying to.
 
2013-08-07 11:04:47 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Could this BE any more stupid?


media.tumblr.com
 
2013-08-07 11:05:33 PM  

Mikey1969: Yeah, I'm not a big fan of being manipulated that way. I like almost nothing about Disney, and 'The Vault' is one of the reasons I cringe whenever they buy a property like The Muppets or Star Wars.


Really the only difference is that Lucas' vault has a shorter interval.
 
2013-08-07 11:05:44 PM  

lacrossestar83: I don't think it's unreasonable to have lifetime protection of your works plus some amount of time after your death,


I do.  Our Founding Fathers were right on this issue.
 
2013-08-07 11:07:40 PM  

ZeroCorpse: The Vault is Disney's cheap-ass way of creating a forced "collectible" status on their movies and increasing their value and sales when the do finally release one from The Vault. It's shiatty business, and they keep doing it. They still do that shiat today, and it's still just as annoying to people who have little kids NOW who want to see Disney classics NOW... Not in five or ten years.


To be fair to Disney, it was really just an extension of what they'd been doing in releasing their movies theatrically for decades.  It started because Snow White was a huge hit, so they put it back into the theaters a couple years after it was originally released (as was done with Gone with the Wind and a couple other movies).  Bambi, Dumbo and Fantasia actually bombed when first released, so their rereleases were an attempt to recoup.

When I was a kid, Disney animated films got a run in the theaters every couple of years for each new group of kids.  I saw Song of the South in 1982, which was its next-to-last re-release (the last one was in 1986)

On the up-side, Amazon and eBay and tons of DVDs circulating mean that its easy enough to get any Disney film you want cheap (save SotS, which hasn't had a video release here in the States).
 
2013-08-07 11:09:32 PM  

Mikey1969: I swear, Walt is spinning in his grave fast enough to travel in time.


Eh, Walt liked making money; he just didn't get good at it until the 1950s.  He left these sorts of games to Roy, who played them well and set this sort of shiat in motion (see my post above).
 
2013-08-07 11:09:48 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: ZeroCorpse: The Vault is Disney's cheap-ass way of creating a forced "collectible" status on their movies and increasing their value and sales when the do finally release one from The Vault. It's shiatty business, and they keep doing it. They still do that shiat today, and it's still just as annoying to people who have little kids NOW who want to see Disney classics NOW... Not in five or ten years.

To be fair to Disney, it was really just an extension of what they'd been doing in releasing their movies theatrically for decades.  It started because Snow White was a huge hit, so they put it back into the theaters a couple years after it was originally released (as was done with Gone with the Wind and a couple other movies).  Bambi, Dumbo and Fantasia actually bombed when first released, so their rereleases were an attempt to recoup.

When I was a kid, Disney animated films got a run in the theaters every couple of years for each new group of kids.  I saw Song of the South in 1982, which was its next-to-last re-release (the last one was in 1986)

On the up-side, Amazon and eBay and tons of DVDs circulating mean that its easy enough to get any Disney film you want cheap (save SotS, which hasn't had a video release here in the States).



I bought Song of the South at Harrod's in London ~2000.  Then I ripped it and burned it to DVD.  Lots of people now have copies.
 
2013-08-07 11:14:48 PM  
I think we are leaving the good old days of the internet. In 10 years. It will be completely controlled by governments and ISP's. We wont be able to any of this anymore. Net neutrality will go away. You will only be able to access the sites that your ISP owns. Kind of like the old days with AOL and CompuServe.

What really pisses me off is retransmission fees. Im sorry But I dont feel you should collect a fee on a product you give away.
 
2013-08-07 11:16:32 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Mikey1969: I swear, Walt is spinning in his grave fast enough to travel in time.

Eh, Walt liked making money; he just didn't get good at it until the 1950s.  He left these sorts of games to Roy, who played them well and set this sort of shiat in motion (see my post above).


Sure he liked making money, nothing wrong with that. The problem is, these games are ruining Disney for a lot of people, I'd actually consider the trouble of a Disney based vacation if they hadn't become a symbol for everything wrong with family entertainment. That's the part that I don't believe was in Walt's vision, the 'fark everybody' plan.
 
2013-08-07 11:20:18 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Mikey1969: Well, Disney thinks they're being cute by playing that 'We're putting it back in the vault' game. I play along by only buying their shiat used.

Fark Disney...


That "Disney Vault" bullshiat was the bane of my existence when I worked in the video rental business (back in the days of VHS). People would come in looking for, say,  Peter Pan  because their kid was 8 years old and had never seen it. I'd have to tell them "Sorry, it's not available. It's in the Disney Vault."

They'd get pissed and say,  "Well, didn't you guys get it before they put it in the Vault?"

"Yes, we did." I'd answer, "But then some jerk of a Disney collector stole our copy because the movie was no longer available for purchase thanks to it being in the Vault. So now we don't have a copy, and we can't get  another copy until Disney opens the Vault on that movie in about ten years."

"But little Timmy will be 18 then!"

"Yep. Go tell Disney about it. As if they give a damn."


The Vault is Disney's cheap-ass way of creating a forced "collectible" status on their movies and increasing their value and sales when the do finally release one from The Vault. It's shiatty business, and they keep doing it. They still do that shiat today, and it's still just as annoying to people who have little kids NOW who want to see Disney classics NOW... Not in five or ten years.




I pointed to one of those boxes outside the grocery store and told my six year old daughter that was my first job. sitting inside the box pushing videos out the slot. . .
/FARK Disney
 
2013-08-07 11:21:00 PM  

andrewagill: Mikey1969: Yeah, I'm not a big fan of being manipulated that way. I like almost nothing about Disney, and 'The Vault' is one of the reasons I cringe whenever they buy a property like The Muppets or Star Wars.

Really the only difference is that Lucas' vault has a shorter interval.


No, once it's in Lucas' vault, it never emerges. The difference is that we at least get SOMEthing in exchange. It's never as good as what he locked up, but it's better than nothing. And it's also not just blatant manipulation of his target audience, instead it's arrogance on his part. I can handle a cocky douche a little better than someone insulting my intelligence by trying to play me.
 
2013-08-07 11:24:22 PM  

Corvus: Well subby Holden is actually working on making court minimums for non-violent crimes go away and shortening time for drug use  and it is also support by many conservative groups. But that's real politics and not a trollerific partisan headline so you won't see it greened here.


So he is bringing Mudflation into the justice system?

MOAR LAWS! MOAR FELONIES!(but make a few non violent things have no minimum sentence, so a few white people can lawyer out)
 
2013-08-07 11:28:42 PM  

jjorsett: mediablitz: The state also argued that dangerous criminals would have to be released in order to satisfy the panel's order, a claim the Supreme Court rejected

Oh goody, dueling quotations: "At the time of the original ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia issued a scathing dissent, saying violent criminals would be put back on the streets. Scalia dissented again in Friday's ruling, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito."

The dangerousness of these people isn't going to be determined by who gets a larger number of opinions for their side from a handful of people in black robes, but rather the death, blood, and suffering that will be the result of their release. Pray that you're not one of the unfortunate victims who'll be the ultimate 'votes' as to who is right.


AH HA HA HA!!! You quoted Scalia!

I KNEW you would. As long as there is fear involved, you are on board. The dude has straight up admitted he doesn't give a shiat about the law anymore.

FEAR!!!! FEAR!!!! You must spend a shiatload of money on Depends...
 
2013-08-07 11:29:26 PM  

Branniganslaw: Out of curiosity, is it easy for them to investigate what your "streaming" and determine if it's illegal?

/asking for a friend...


It's easy, but normally they don't unless you're a) making lots of money at it and they notice you doing it; b) you decide to taunt the movie studios by telling them what you're up to; or c) you're a career criminal and you get caught streaming while in the course of getting caught doing something else (hackers get caught this way).

The only other common way is when someone like RIAA makes a big stink and the feds have to do a dragnet-style sweep and catch everyone; so you roll the dice; but otherwise you're pretty safe if you keep it inside your own home.

But I'm only relaying stuff I've heard on the Internet.
 
2013-08-07 11:39:10 PM  

dennysgod: [floridasolicitor.files.wordpress.com image 450x300]

Well it has precedent since the illegal copying of VHS has been a felony for over 30 years and illegally downloading or streaming a movie is essentially the same thing.


"Ooooh, I'm SO scared!"

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-08-07 11:53:40 PM  
Wow. An entire Friends thread with no Aniston nipples? Wow.
 
2013-08-08 12:29:11 AM  

kombi: I think we are leaving the good old days of the internet. In 10 years. It will be completely controlled by governments and ISP's. We wont be able to any of this anymore. Net neutrality will go away. You will only be able to access the sites that your ISP owns. Kind of like the old days with AOL and CompuServe.

What really pisses me off is retransmission fees. Im sorry But I dont feel you should collect a fee on a product you give away.


I think you are correct. It might be for a variety of reasons, but the end result will be the same. I think it will be done under the guise of "National Security", made possible by Lobbyists from the Entertainment biz.
 
2013-08-08 12:35:06 AM  

12349876: lacrossestar83: I don't think it's unreasonable to have lifetime protection of your works plus some amount of time after your death,

I do.  Our Founding Fathers were right on this issue.


Yeah, we should totally go back to the dual federal-and-state copyright system.  That'd make things easier for everyone.  Totally.
 
2013-08-08 12:41:46 AM  

Faddy: lacrossestar83: Oh great, another "all copyright is bad" thread

Why should I have to investigate if some streaming service bought the rights to what they are showing and how would I go about doing that? I have no idea if Netflix, Amazon or whatever other VOD service has the legal right to show.  It is an unfair burden to put on the user to have to research this themselves just as it was an unfair burden for Youtube and other user generated video services to do the same and this was recognised in the DMCA.  Video services are not responsible for breached of copyright which they host as long as they take action on DMCA copyright notices.

Why should guilt pass over the middle man hosting service and go straight from the uploader to the streamer/downloader.


This.

Charge the guy uploading the content.

/the guilt should pass over because for every one uploader you can have thousands of downloaders
//downloaders are easier to track down
///prosecuting thousands of easy to find downloaders = $$$$$$$
////follow the $
 
2013-08-08 01:11:48 AM  

Musikslayer: kombi: I think we are leaving the good old days of the internet. In 10 years. It will be completely controlled by governments and ISP's. We wont be able to any of this anymore. Net neutrality will go away. You will only be able to access the sites that your ISP owns. Kind of like the old days with AOL and CompuServe.

What really pisses me off is retransmission fees. Im sorry But I dont feel you should collect a fee on a product you give away.

I think you are correct. It might be for a variety of reasons, but the end result will be the same. I think it will be done under the guise of "National Security", made possible by Lobbyists from the Entertainment biz.


I dont think it will be "National Security". I think it will be under the guys of Net Neutrality and priority on networks. I can see Comcast (NBC Universal) "Cable Town" Blocking Netflix in favor of HULU. Or extramly slowing down Netflix traffic. Or Blocking or slowing google and advertising full speed if you use there site. Remember the whole CBS Viacom Dishnetwork Hopper crap this year. What if it was Comcast and they decided to block all sites that discuss the hopper. Or Slowing traffic to Eonline or TMZ because of bad reviews of TV shows.
 
2013-08-08 01:19:26 AM  

kombi: Musikslayer: kombi: I think we are leaving the good old days of the internet. In 10 years. It will be completely controlled by governments and ISP's. We wont be able to any of this anymore. Net neutrality will go away. You will only be able to access the sites that your ISP owns. Kind of like the old days with AOL and CompuServe.

What really pisses me off is retransmission fees. Im sorry But I dont feel you should collect a fee on a product you give away.

I think you are correct. It might be for a variety of reasons, but the end result will be the same. I think it will be done under the guise of "National Security", made possible by Lobbyists from the Entertainment biz.

I dont think it will be "National Security". I think it will be under the guys of Net Neutrality and priority on networks. I can see Comcast (NBC Universal) "Cable Town" Blocking Netflix in favor of HULU. Or extramly slowing down Netflix traffic. Or Blocking or slowing google and advertising full speed if you use there site. Remember the whole CBS Viacom Dishnetwork Hopper crap this year. What if it was Comcast and they decided to block all sites that discuss the hopper. Or Slowing traffic to Eonline or TMZ because of bad reviews of TV shows.


We actually already see this now. The Viacom / Time Warner black out now. By law cable and sat provider are required to carry local stations. Now if you use Viacom's network (OTA antenna) its free. But if you use cable or Sat. They have to pay for "rebroadcasting". Even though they are required to broadcast it. Its the same concept.
 
2013-08-08 01:31:33 AM  
I'd be ok with this if there were several key tradeoffs:
1) All Copyrights are null and void if there is not an immediate and advertised way to buy the work on its own
2) All Copyrights are restricted to two years without the ability for extension for any reason (including treaties)
3) All Copyright claims are null and void if the work is shown to draw from other works

Let's be honest, property is a useful yet artificial concept that takes a lot of work to structure.  Intellectual property is such a great idea that it provides a means to outlaw the very way that our cells reproduce.  In the end, it's only real in our heads and that's why this is frustrating for all sides.
 
2013-08-08 01:38:17 AM  
It should be more like Britain. They have a 50 year rule. After 50 years its public domain. They are trying to change it or adjust it now. Early Beetles and Stones are coming into public domain in GB.
 
2013-08-08 01:44:18 AM  

Dracolich: I'd be ok with this if there were several key tradeoffs:
1) All Copyrights are null and void if there is not an immediate and advertised way to buy the work on its own
2) All Copyrights are restricted to two years without the ability for extension for any reason (including treaties)
3) All Copyright claims are null and void if the work is shown to draw from other works

Let's be honest, property is a useful yet artificial concept that takes a lot of work to structure.  Intellectual property is such a great idea that it provides a means to outlaw the very way that our cells reproduce.  In the end, it's only real in our heads and that's why this is frustrating for all sides.


I think just about any film, painting, song, etc can be shown to draw from other works.  It seems like it would be really hard to draw a line in the sand about how much is too much, since it's all so subjective and can be looked at from so many perspectives.
 
2013-08-08 01:49:30 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Dracolich: I'd be ok with this if there were several key tradeoffs:
1) All Copyrights are null and void if there is not an immediate and advertised way to buy the work on its own
2) All Copyrights are restricted to two years without the ability for extension for any reason (including treaties)
3) All Copyright claims are null and void if the work is shown to draw from other works

Let's be honest, property is a useful yet artificial concept that takes a lot of work to structure.  Intellectual property is such a great idea that it provides a means to outlaw the very way that our cells reproduce.  In the end, it's only real in our heads and that's why this is frustrating for all sides.

I think just about any film, painting, song, etc can be shown to draw from other works.  It seems like it would be really hard to draw a line in the sand about how much is too much, since it's all so subjective and can be looked at from so many perspectives.


It does. Lets say you want to use a song or score for something. Lets say something classical. Beethoven. While the music may be out of copyright. The performance may not.
 
2013-08-08 01:49:44 AM  
I'd really like to see copyright change to 30 years, but with a life+15 protection against anyone profiting from a work or one substantially the same. So, Amazon couldn't sell a Kindle version of Catcher in the Rye, nor could J.R. Ballinger sell A Snatcher in the Pie, but Project Gutenberg could give it away, and I could write Miley Cyrus' Adventures with Holden.
 
2013-08-08 01:50:00 AM  

lacrossestar83: 12349876: lacrossestar83: I don't think it's unreasonable to have lifetime protection of your works plus some amount of time after your death,

I do.  Our Founding Fathers were right on this issue.

Yeah, we should totally go back to the dual federal-and-state copyright system.  That'd make things easier for everyone.  Totally.


I'm talking about the federal law that trumped all those differences.  14+14 is plenty enough time.  My tax dollars have more important uses than making sure the grandson of an artist doesn't have to work a day in his life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790
 
2013-08-08 01:50:00 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama

U.S. Department of Commerce!

FTFY.
 
2013-08-08 01:54:58 AM  

kombi: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Dracolich: I'd be ok with this if there were several key tradeoffs:
1) All Copyrights are null and void if there is not an immediate and advertised way to buy the work on its own
2) All Copyrights are restricted to two years without the ability for extension for any reason (including treaties)
3) All Copyright claims are null and void if the work is shown to draw from other works

Let's be honest, property is a useful yet artificial concept that takes a lot of work to structure.  Intellectual property is such a great idea that it provides a means to outlaw the very way that our cells reproduce.  In the end, it's only real in our heads and that's why this is frustrating for all sides.

I think just about any film, painting, song, etc can be shown to draw from other works.  It seems like it would be really hard to draw a line in the sand about how much is too much, since it's all so subjective and can be looked at from so many perspectives.

It does. Lets say you want to use a song or score for something. Lets say something classical. Beethoven. While the music may be out of copyright. The performance may not.


Currently this is correct.  I'm proposing that it needs to be changed.  It is the source for many of the Copyright loopholes.  Protections are for original works.  Not original?  No protection.  This is not a tool for simply rebranding something in the public domain for further exclusive rights.
 
2013-08-08 02:02:56 AM  
Its a fine line. I like the 50 year rule myself. But the whole system is screwed up. If I write a script. Then someone takes that script and uses it without my permission. I have no recourse. But if I mail to myself. Eureka poor mans copyright. I think after 50 years its public domain. Does not matter what it is or if it is a different performance. The problem is..Look at what was around 50 years ago that around now.
 
2013-08-08 02:13:58 AM  
I see they found a use for the NSA server farms.
 
2013-08-08 02:15:57 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: You know... I voted for Obama

/but I'm getting pretty damned tired of the bullsh*t coming out of his administration
//not that it couldn't be worse


I felt the same way about Bush at this time in his tenure....The exact same way.  There is no difference.

Lawyers With Nukes: ITT, the entertainment industry continues buying politicians to defend their dying business model. People will be fined or imprisoned for watching a stream of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.

Meanwhile, an entire generation is growing up to one day disregard gibberish concepts like "Intellectual Property." But for the time being, we will continue to get the whores we vote for.

/GPL or Copyleft, start using it or get out of the way
//No, I don't know how you'll make money off your IP. Progress was tough on buggy whip manufacturers, too.



To sum up: "I dont want to pay for the stuff you make that I enjoy, so stop whining about wanting to be paid for it.  and buggy whips!  I heard someone talk about buggy whips once!"
 
2013-08-08 02:19:23 AM  
I dont think this is a left or right thing. Its a lawyer lobbyist thing.
 
2013-08-08 02:20:59 AM  
Hmmm... there's another issue to all of this.

Think of your favorite work under Copyright.  Do you remember it well?  When you close your eyes, can you relive parts of it?  I have bad news for you.  Your memory has made an illegal copy.  As technology blurs the line between what our mind does and what a computer does, this will be a very real discussion.  Do we really want common workings of the mind to be a felony?
 
2013-08-08 02:28:14 AM  

Dracolich: Hmmm... there's another issue to all of this.

Think of your favorite work under Copyright.  Do you remember it well?  When you close your eyes, can you relive parts of it?  I have bad news for you.  Your memory has made an illegal copy.  As technology blurs the line between what our mind does and what a computer does, this will be a very real discussion.  Do we really want common workings of the mind to be a felony?


Then we also balance the "Fair Use" line. Also I can use something for a few seconds. But if I play more than like 10 seconds of something. I have to pay for the full thing. The problem is not only copyright. But royalties only. I worked with a guy that was receiving royalty checks from ET. And at the time it was not played as much as it is now. So they where good sized checks. Its the same when you listen to the radio. They have to pay royalty's. Even if you are listening to a 50's song. Someone still gets paid. Thats why they go after copyright. In the case of our example Friends. they get FU money from syndication. Thats why they keep trying to push back copyright.
 
2013-08-08 02:43:45 AM  
Part of the problem is we want to make everything a crime. Again both sides. Im 90% of cases like this its civil. Not criminal. We want to make everything criminal. Then lets say I share songs online. They want some crazy amount per song or video. The whole system is just screwed.
 
2013-08-08 02:45:19 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Dracolich: I'd be ok with this if there were several key tradeoffs:
1) All Copyrights are null and void if there is not an immediate and advertised way to buy the work on its own
2) All Copyrights are restricted to two years without the ability for extension for any reason (including treaties)
3) All Copyright claims are null and void if the work is shown to draw from other works

Let's be honest, property is a useful yet artificial concept that takes a lot of work to structure.  Intellectual property is such a great idea that it provides a means to outlaw the very way that our cells reproduce.  In the end, it's only real in our heads and that's why this is frustrating for all sides.

I think just about any film, painting, song, etc can be shown to draw from other works.  It seems like it would be really hard to draw a line in the sand about how much is too much, since it's all so subjective and can be looked at from so many perspectives.


Yeah, great. We're all going to be paying royalties to the putative descendents of Sophocles, Homer and the unknown authors of "The Epic of Gilgamesh".
 
2013-08-08 02:49:25 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Dracolich: I'd be ok with this if there were several key tradeoffs:
1) All Copyrights are null and void if there is not an immediate and advertised way to buy the work on its own
2) All Copyrights are restricted to two years without the ability for extension for any reason (including treaties)
3) All Copyright claims are null and void if the work is shown to draw from other works

Let's be honest, property is a useful yet artificial concept that takes a lot of work to structure.  Intellectual property is such a great idea that it provides a means to outlaw the very way that our cells reproduce.  In the end, it's only real in our heads and that's why this is frustrating for all sides.

I think just about any film, painting, song, etc can be shown to draw from other works.  It seems like it would be really hard to draw a line in the sand about how much is too much, since it's all so subjective and can be looked at from so many perspectives.

Yeah, great. We're all going to be paying royalties to the putative descendents of Sophocles, Homer and the unknown authors of "The Epic of Gilgamesh".


If they could figure it out they would. Im shocked the queen does not try to get royalty's from Shakespeare works.
 
2013-08-08 03:32:10 AM  
Maybe Continuum is the most accurate futurist work on TV.
 
2013-08-08 03:54:53 AM  

Dracolich: Hmmm... there's another issue to all of this.

Think of your favorite work under Copyright.  Do you remember it well?  When you close your eyes, can you relive parts of it?  I have bad news for you.  Your memory has made an illegal copy.  As technology blurs the line between what our mind does and what a computer does, this will be a very real discussion.  Do we really want common workings of the mind to be a felony?


Aaaaand you're done.  The 2 years bit was ridiculous enough, even before this drivel.
 
2013-08-08 04:10:28 AM  

12349876: I'm talking about the federal law that trumped all those differences.  14+14 is plenty enough time.


28 years certainly was plenty of time back then when people didn't live as long.  And...

My tax dollars have more important uses than making sure the grandson of an artist doesn't have to work a day in his life.

Sweet Mother of Holy Fark.  If you're worried (concerned?) about where your tax dollars are going, there are much more wasteful sectors to complain about, like, oh, I dunno, national defense.  And your taxes aren't going to the heirs; they're getting paid royalties from compulsory licenses and negotiated licenses from the people who use their material.
 
2013-08-08 04:34:37 AM  
Felony streaming?!? Good luck. I'm behind 7 proxies.
 
2013-08-08 05:00:12 AM  
Lets just go ahead and go full retard and shoot anyone who even thinks about copyright infringement.

/If Hollywood can imprison us for streaming good movies then we should be able to jail them for making bad movies.
//Seems fair to me.
 
2013-08-08 05:22:59 AM  
We have to question the judiciousness of devoting spare government resources to prosecuting this kind of activity. It seems to us that illegal public performance is the kind of economic concern that can be effectively managed through existing civil remedies. Moreover, criminal copyright prosecutions need to show all the elements of civil copyright infringement, something civil courts are traditionally much better versed in

How is this not the painfully obvious final word on this topic?

Somebody needs a new assignment.
 
2013-08-08 06:17:15 AM  

you are a puppet: So you're not sentenced to a day, a week, a month, or even a year?

/Because felonies are punishable by over a year imprisonment, heh heh


A felony, even with time served, basically ruins your chances for a middle class life, strips your gun rights, and in some states can permanently strip you of your voting rights.
 
2013-08-08 06:43:12 AM  

thamike: We have to question the judiciousness of devoting spare government resources to prosecuting this kind of activity. It seems to us that illegal public performance is the kind of economic concern that can be effectively managed through existing civil remedies. Moreover, criminal copyright prosecutions need to show all the elements of civil copyright infringement, something civil courts are traditionally much better versed in

How is this not the painfully obvious final word on this topic?

Somebody needs a new assignment.


Because private prisons are profitable.

Because our law creators largely consist of people who don't understand technology in a comprehensive way making it difficult for them to update existing laws in a fair manner.
 
2013-08-08 06:58:21 AM  

lacrossestar83: Aaaaand you're done. The 2 years bit was ridiculous enough, even before this drivel.


Wow, you're not even trying, troll.
 
2013-08-08 07:19:34 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: You know... I voted for Obama

/but I'm getting pretty damned tired of the bullsh*t coming out of his administration
//not that it couldn't be worse


It could be a lot worse - that's why you voted for him. Remember?
 
2013-08-08 07:43:52 AM  

MrHappyRotter: What people fail to acknowledge is that we should be serving pre-emptive terms in jail these days.  It's a known fact, there's absolutely no way for someone to live their lives without breaking a law.  The codes are so poorly written, so convoluted and beyond the understanding of day to day people that it's unavoidable.  In fact, you're probably breaking a law at this very moment.

So, from the moment of birth, we should put everybody in prison, until they're at least 18 or 21 years old.  That way, when they get out, they will have pre-emptively served time for whatever infractions....you could in theory smoke a single joint, murder 3 people or download a movie and never have to go to jail for any of it.  However, if you do a crime for which you haven't served the time already, then your punishment will be death.


"No one lived a completely blameless life. It might be just possible, by lying very still in a cellar somewhere, to get through a day without committing a crime. But only just. And, even then, you were probably guilty of loitering." - Terry Pratchett
 
2013-08-08 07:44:55 AM  

lacrossestar83: Oh great, another "all copyright is bad" thread


It is a how farking stupid are the people behind shiat like that that they want make something that you have no way to know if it is legal or not a felony.


dennysgod: Well it has precedent since the illegal copying of VHS has been a felony for over 30 years and illegally downloading or streaming a movie is essentially the same thing



If you are streaming a movie you have absoltuley no way to know if the person you are streaming from has a legal right to do so.

This puts the consumer in a position where they have to have the time and legal chops to research if every source of media they consume is on the up and up.

This would be like arresting someone for listening to a "pirate" radio station, or arresting peoepm who eat at a restaurant if the restaurant got their food illegally.

They are nothing alike.
 
2013-08-08 07:47:32 AM  

you are a puppet: machoprogrammer: you are a puppet: machoprogrammer: tenpoundsofcheese: Smelly McUgly: tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama.
This is NOT the CHANGE we were HOPING for.

I always wondered what happens when a conservative shill has to choose between bashing Obama and promoting incarceration for non-violent crimes and the unalienable rights of corporations.

Interesting. It seems the shill decides that bashing Obama is more important. Of course, this could be an outlier. Let's see what other shills have to say in this thread.

Well, I always wondered what happens when people think that a person is a conservative.
Or that they are a shill.

I also always wondered why people like yourself make up things like saying that this is about incarceration.  Not all felonies result in incarceration.  Tax fraud is a felony and yet Rangel was never incarcerated.   Clinton's perjury is a felony and yet he was never incarcerated.

On this tab, the Fark Democrat Brigade will defend Obama and anyone with a D after their name at any cost, and any criticism of anything related to anyone with a D after their name HAS to be by a conservative. You are lucky you actually got that response, instead of the usual "BOTH SIDES ARE BAD SO VOTE REPUBLICANS" that the mouth breathers usually use.

You just told Lance Armstrong "Hey don't worry champ, these dumb trolls will accuse anyone of using steroids!" Stick to the wrestling threads, simpleton.

Aww, is someone upset that I said something bad about their political team's fanboys?

I don't know, are you? Your post sounded pretty mad. I was just explaining who you were replying to.


Oh, sorry. My bad
 
2013-08-08 07:54:30 AM  
hey, uh... did anyone one mention that "Friends" sucks? cuz it do.
 
2013-08-08 08:03:03 AM  

liam76: It is a how farking stupid are the people behind shiat like that that they want make something that you have no way to know if it is legal or not a felony.


also there's the matter of turning civil law violations into criminal ones.
 
2013-08-08 08:14:03 AM  
Here in the United States, you have two choices of how to make a living:
1) Run with the pimps, or
2) Hump with the whores.

Take your pick.
How's fascism feel, Americans?

One in 25 of you were arrested in 2011.
How do you like them apples?
 
2013-08-08 08:14:22 AM  
So sneaking into a movie theater is now a felony?

How are we not a police state?
 
2013-08-08 08:16:45 AM  
The point I got was that if the media was liberal, correlation would equal causation.
 
2013-08-08 08:17:27 AM  

lacrossestar83: Dracolich: Hmmm... there's another issue to all of this.

Think of your favorite work under Copyright.  Do you remember it well?  When you close your eyes, can you relive parts of it?  I have bad news for you.  Your memory has made an illegal copy.  As technology blurs the line between what our mind does and what a computer does, this will be a very real discussion.  Do we really want common workings of the mind to be a felony?

Aaaaand you're done.  The 2 years bit was ridiculous enough, even before this drivel.


If you disagree, I'd at least like to have some decent reasons why my fears aren't reasonable.  My work takes me to the patent side of things, and the reality has gotten ridiculous compared to the intent.  Laws should be written for the long term with safeguards to prevent abuse because we need to acknowledge that abuse happens.

I think that if they want to approach more strict and serious penalties for Copyright infringement, then there need to be much tighter qualifications to get one.  I'll put it to you this way: years ago I used to be in a church choir and whenever they'd need more copies of a part, they'd use the copy machine.  The honest-to-God sheriff was part of the choir, and he'd jokingly cover his eyes while they'd hand the sheets out.  This kind of copying also happens at pretty much every music class in the country.  What would you have them do?  Should the copier lose their voting rights and go to jail?  How long until big data makes it much more feasible to enforce this?  I think it's much more reasonable to limit it to new works, hence the two years of exclusive rights especially if it's going to come with large penalties.

As someone with patents, I'd like to see both systems dismantled and replaced with tax-shelter rewards.  It would make a friendlier and less defensive community.  If you bring something to the table, you're still getting value based on usage but it can't be your only source of income to be valid.  You know, kinda like the system for capital equipment.
 
2013-08-08 08:32:07 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Here in the United States, you have two choices of how to make a living:
1) Run with the pimps, or
2) Hump with the whores.

Take your pick.
How's fascism feel, Americans?

One in 25 of you were arrested in 2011.
How do you like them apples?


As a law-abiding American in the top 5%
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-08-08 08:43:59 AM  

Faddy: lacrossestar83: Oh great, another "all copyright is bad" thread

Why should I have to investigate if some streaming service bought the rights to what they are showing and how would I go about doing that? I have no idea if Netflix, Amazon or whatever other VOD service has the legal right to show.  It is an unfair burden to put on the user to have to research this themselves just as it was an unfair burden for Youtube and other user generated video services to do the same and this was recognised in the DMCA.  Video services are not responsible for breached of copyright which they host as long as they take action on DMCA copyright notices.

Why should guilt pass over the middle man hosting service and go straight from the uploader to the streamer/downloader.


Because we need prisoners and soldiers.
 
2013-08-08 08:58:39 AM  

Anti_illuminati: HotIgneous Intruder: Here in the United States, you have two choices of how to make a living:
1) Run with the pimps, or
2) Hump with the whores.

Take your pick.
How's fascism feel, Americans?

One in 25 of you were arrested in 2011.
How do you like them apples?

As a law-abiding American in the top 5%
[24.media.tumblr.com image 400x263]


And there you have the problem in a nutshell. "As long as it's happening to someone else, I don't care."
 
2013-08-08 09:03:44 AM  

LordJiro: Anti_illuminati: HotIgneous Intruder: Here in the United States, you have two choices of how to make a living:
1) Run with the pimps, or
2) Hump with the whores.

Take your pick.
How's fascism feel, Americans?

One in 25 of you were arrested in 2011.
How do you like them apples?

As a law-abiding American in the top 5%
[24.media.tumblr.com image 400x263]

And there you have the problem in a nutshell. "As long as it's happening to someone else, I don't care."


Well, I mean, I can complain on an internet forum too if you think that'll help.
 
2013-08-08 11:58:20 AM  

BizarreMan: Hmm I wonder if that would be used against the people who had their webcams on their police scanners during the Boston manhunt.  Streaming the audio so we all knew well in advance of the plebes watching network and cable news that everything had gone down.


I can see why that would be discouraged, for the entirely possible chance that the bombers could be tracking the police force's movements and strategies via smartphones.  At the very worst, it sets individual officers up for ambush.
 
2013-08-08 12:57:06 PM  
Hey, producers! We writers learned something a looong time ago--don't worry so much about making content available, and if you're  actually good, they'll  flock out to buy a physical copy--either a book or a DVD.

But hey, you can keep shiatting on your fans, who are providing free advertising, watching your show avidly, etc.. I'm sure that won't backfire at  all or have  any long-term ramifications for your industry.

/So. Damn. Glad. I work in literary media.
//We actually  resolved this problem.
 
2013-08-08 02:27:23 PM  

Dracolich: lacrossestar83: Dracolich: Hmmm... there's another issue to all of this.

Think of your favorite work under Copyright.  Do you remember it well?  When you close your eyes, can you relive parts of it?  I have bad news for you.  Your memory has made an illegal copy.  As technology blurs the line between what our mind does and what a computer does, this will be a very real discussion.  Do we really want common workings of the mind to be a felony?

Aaaaand you're done.  The 2 years bit was ridiculous enough, even before this drivel.

If you disagree, I'd at least like to have some decent reasons why my fears aren't reasonable.  My work takes me to the patent side of things, and the reality has gotten ridiculous compared to the intent.  Laws should be written for the long term with safeguards to prevent abuse because we need to acknowledge that abuse happens.

I think that if they want to approach more strict and serious penalties for Copyright infringement, then there need to be much tighter qualifications to get one.  I'll put it to you this way: years ago I used to be in a church choir and whenever they'd need more copies of a part, they'd use the copy machine.  The honest-to-God sheriff was part of the choir, and he'd jokingly cover his eyes while they'd hand the sheets out.  This kind of copying also happens at pretty much every music class in the country.  What would you have them do?  Should the copier lose their voting rights and go to jail?  How long until big data makes it much more feasible to enforce this?  I think it's much more reasonable to limit it to new works, hence the two years of exclusive rights especially if it's going to come with large penalties.

As someone with patents, I'd like to see both systems dismantled and replaced with tax-shelter rewards.  It would make a friendlier and less defensive community.  If you bring something to the table, you're still getting value based on usage but it can't be your only source of income to be valid.  You know, kinda like the system for capital equipment.


When you said "your memory has made an illegal copy," I thought you were just trolling. There are no thought police, and there never will be.

Yeah, patent law, from what I understand of it, is completely farked due to the "first to patent" nature of it, rather than "first to invent/produce."

Ideas cannot be copyrighted. Nobody can obtain a copyright on "four-minute rock song in the key of G at 144 beats per minute with a guitar, bass guitar, drum set and vocal ensemble." From what I understand about patent law, people actually file similar-sounding shiat for their products because the government is bombarded with patent applications and is pushing through things that shouldn't be patentable, but that's another issue.

Works of authorship can have enormous up-front costs, co copyright allows the authors to make it back, respecting the fact that a work could be written "well before it's time", and can take years before it becomes a big hit.

The choir sheriff knows there aren't any "copyright police" patrolling churches, much like how there isn't Internet piracy policing worth a damn. But if the choir were to perform in a festival, they'd need originals or authorized copies or face disqualification. Also there is a CCLI license that may allow them to copy certain parts at will, but I am not too familiar with that.

Sorry for coming off so brash; I realize having a patent background could distort one's views on other forms of intellectual property. But while illegal copying comes in many forms, our brains aren't in that class.
 
2013-08-08 02:32:20 PM  
^ Works of authorship can have enormous up-front costs, co so copyright allows the authors
FTFM
 
2013-08-08 02:57:30 PM  
The original 14+14 was plenty.  The goal of copyright in the first place was for the original artist to turn enough of a profit to do that art for a living.  The end goal was for future generations to have more art in the public domain.  Too long of a copyright term, and there's no looming copyright expiration to keep artists from resting on their laurels after making something that sells well.  Too short, and it's just not worth trying in the first place.  It turns out that 14 years strikes the best balance, and results in the largest expansion of the public domain.  This is the end goal of copyright in the first place, which is something conveniently forgotten by politicians that have been bought by Hollywood.

Life + x years is a horrible way to do it.  How anyone could possibly think that basing the copyright length on the life expectancy of the artist was a good idea, is beyond me.
 
2013-08-08 05:33:57 PM  

lacrossestar83: 12349876: I'm talking about the federal law that trumped all those differences.  14+14 is plenty enough time.

28 years certainly was plenty of time back then when people didn't live as long.  And...

My tax dollars have more important uses than making sure the grandson of an artist doesn't have to work a day in his life.

Sweet Mother of Holy Fark.  If you're worried (concerned?) about where your tax dollars are going, there are much more wasteful sectors to complain about, like, oh, I dunno, national defense.  And your taxes aren't going to the heirs; they're getting paid royalties from compulsory licenses and negotiated licenses from the people who use their material.


My tax dollars and your tax dollars are paying for the law enforcement that makes sure those royalties and licenses happen.
 
2013-08-08 05:45:51 PM  

Bontesla: Because private prisons are profitable.


True, but somehow I don't think thieves of intellectual property are the particular breed of boom crop they are targeting.  I might be wrong though, as I expect a federal decriminalization of marijuana is more or less right around the corner.
 
2013-08-08 07:26:50 PM  

CourtroomWolf: The original 14+14 was plenty.  The goal of copyright in the first place was for the original artist to turn enough of a profit to do that art for a living.  The end goal was for future generations to have more art in the public domain.  Too long of a copyright term, and there's no looming copyright expiration to keep artists from resting on their laurels after making something that sells well.  Too short, and it's just not worth trying in the first place.  It turns out that 14 years strikes the best balance, and results in the largest expansion of the public domain.  This is the end goal of copyright in the first place, which is something conveniently forgotten by politicians that have been bought by Hollywood.

Life + x years is a horrible way to do it.  How anyone could possibly think that basing the copyright length on the life expectancy of the artist was a good idea, is beyond me.


Ask the rest of the world.
And yet, people keep creating original works.
It's almost as if, y'know, it doesn't inhibit innovation.  Rather, it protects the creators from derivative freeloaders until death or forfeiture of their rights.
And it's optional.  Nobody in the government is forcing anyone to copyright their works, or to enforce their protections.

-------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------


12349876: My tax dollars and your tax dollars are paying for the law enforcement that makes sure those royalties and licenses happen.

Yeah, no.

www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html:
Serving primarily as an office of record, the Copyright Office is not charged with enforcing the law it administers. Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter, which the copyright owner must pursue in federal court.
 
2013-08-08 10:35:09 PM  

lacrossestar83: Yeah, no.

www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html:
Serving primarily as an office of record, the Copyright Office is not charged with enforcing the law it administers. Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter, which the copyright owner must pursue in federal court.


From later in your link.

If you believe that a criminal infringement of copyright has occurred, you may contact the Intellectual Property (IP) Program of the Financial Institution Fraud Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Your tax dollars and mine paying for the FBI.
 
2013-08-08 10:42:08 PM  

lacrossestar83: Yeah, no.

www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html:
Serving primarily as an office of record, the Copyright Office is not charged with enforcing the law it administers. Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter, which the copyright owner must pursue in federal court.


On second thought, I'll actually give you this point.

Our JUDGES have better things to do than make sure Paul McCartney's great granddaughter gets to live like Paris Hilton.
 
Displayed 173 of 173 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report