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 (51 weeks 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
 
2013-08-08 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 23 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