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  
•       •       •

4282 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 173 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report