Discussion: Online Piracy, Net Neutrality, Killswitch, and Other Internet Issues

[StorminNorman]

IP laws are pretty awful for society. A complete misunderstanding of the very idea of property.

 

[Nightmare]

This is stupid.

 

[DACrowe]

This is not going to effect putting videos or watching them on Youtube--unless they're a copyrighted movie which should already not be on Youtube because it is illegal for them to be running it. What it does is criminalize those who watch them. That doesn't mean Internet streaming is going to be against the law. It means that if you like to listen to music on Youtube or watch movies on megavideo.....well that may be a criminal act in the near future.

As much as I dislike the proposed law, I really can't blame Hollywood for lobbying for this. They lose millions a year at least because of streaming. With that said, the law is not harmless if it is actually passed and enforced for a lot of young people who use the Internet.

 

[StorminNorman]

We should not be in the business of creating more laws that turn more people into criminals for non-violent, arbitrary crimes.

 

[dnno1]

We should not be in the business of creating more laws that turn more people into criminals for non-violent, arbitrary crimes.

It's not necessarily us. It's the IP owners that are pushing for these laws. They are mainly major corporations, artist, and venture capitalists who want to maintain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. With out IP laws we probably wouldn't be having this discussion on this forum.

 

[jaganar]

we all know before the government cracked down on streaming sites, they also had a plan for YOUTUBE...
i uploaded 2 clips from RIO and was well on my way to 20k views when i got hit with a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION this morning for the 2 of them, I WASNT MAKING NO profit from it , neither was i claiming credit, but had FAIR USE as a disclaimer in the discription. no parties were named, it was just a random or so it would seem report for the fan videos i used .

(bear in mind PEOPLE upload the bejesus out of clips they made from their fav tv shows and they are fine *FAMILY GUY, TINY TOONS, DBZ, DEATHNOTE* ) but i have seen clips from recent movies that stay for years ... THUS as of today , i dont care for YOUTUBE anymore since the government has killed any sort of fun .

so even tho this wasnt any profitmaking , it was getting word of mouth publicity from FANS TO FANS. has anyone else been hit with bogus charges like this from UTUBE ??

include in this drama , the whole REGIONAL video thing , which makes U-TUBE suck even more (you cant watch videos that arent in your region WTF) the last time i checked we werent living in a communist world


RANTING , you bet your ***, but it sucks when people who like a series actually are punished for posting their favorite clips.

the last time i checked the FAIR USE still protected the innocent instead of HAVING THE GOVERNMENT come after you at the whim of the media companies (like that lady who got hit with a million dollar fine for downloading 24 songs)

 

[NHawk19]

eh the government will find a way to stop making the internet fun. Look at all the other bills in play such as those which tax sales etc. Enjoy it while you can.

 

[Victarion]

Vitriolic rant not befitting a 15 year old girl is contained within the spoilers.

Spoiler

Congress is a lemon party of old farts that're just begging for a red-assing! I really hope Anonymous takes action against this ****. Perhaps another youtube pron day incorporating moar bestiality and torture type stuff is in order.

Suck my nonexistant reptillian **** you old ****heads.

Buncha candyass mother****ers.

 

[StorminNorman]

It's not necessarily us. It's the IP owners that are pushing for these laws. They are mainly major corporations, artist, and venture capitalists who want to maintain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. With out IP laws we probably wouldn't be having this discussion on this forum.

The IP owners can push all they want, it is the government that makes them happen.

There should be no IP laws. It is a victimless crime.

 

[DACrowe]

we all know before the government cracked down on streaming sites, they also had a plan for YOUTUBE...
i uploaded 2 clips from RIO and was well on my way to 20k views when i got hit with a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION this morning for the 2 of them, I WASNT MAKING NO profit from it , neither was i claiming credit, but had FAIR USE as a disclaimer in the discription. no parties were named, it was just a random or so it would seem report for the fan videos i used .

(bear in mind PEOPLE upload the bejesus out of clips they made from their fav tv shows and they are fine *FAMILY GUY, TINY TOONS, DBZ, DEATHNOTE* ) but i have seen clips from recent movies that stay for years ... THUS as of today , i dont care for YOUTUBE anymore since the government has killed any sort of fun .

so even tho this wasnt any profitmaking , it was getting word of mouth publicity from FANS TO FANS. has anyone else been hit with bogus charges like this from UTUBE ??

include in this drama , the whole REGIONAL video thing , which makes U-TUBE suck even more (you cant watch videos that arent in your region WTF) the last time i checked we werent living in a communist world


RANTING , you bet your ***, but it sucks when people who like a series actually are punished for posting their favorite clips.

the last time i checked the FAIR USE still protected the innocent instead of HAVING THE GOVERNMENT come after you at the whim of the media companies (like that lady who got hit with a million dollar fine for downloading 24 songs)

Well that's more the movie studio coming after you and using the government. Fair Use on the Internet is very vague. I think we need new Fair Use laws to clarify (or a clear ruling from the Supreme Court, which you should fear as the Roberts court will always side with corporations over individual rights) Fair Use on the Internet. One that would essentially keep from, say, putting an entire movie or half a movie on Youtube, but one that allows a few minutes. Music IP (such as taking a copyrighted song and changing the lyrics for a video) would still be even trickier.

However, I strictly oppose criminalizing watching streaming videos. However, that is the only way for Hollywood to truly crack down on piracy, so I think they may lobby Congress successfully on this issue.

 

[DACrowe]

The IP owners can push all they want, it is the government that makes them happen.

There should be no IP laws. It is a victimless crime.

That's an odd form of libertarianism. You oppose theft, yes? While I'll gladly admit I've used Napster and other sites in the past, from a studio's perspective this is a big deal. They make their living off producing films. Music artists make their living off selling that music. Authors make their living off writing books. If millions of people can watch movies without paying for them, listen to those CDs without paying for them and read an author's novels, essays, columns, etc. without paying for them, is that not taking money away from the creator of the property?

It's like saying that there should be no laws banning the unwanted use of someone's likeness. They aren't being robbed from directly or being personally abused, but if that person if a famous actress is used to sell a product she didn't believe in (such as assault rifles or women's clinics at either extreme), should they not have a say in how their likeness is or is not used?

I don't like a number of the IP laws in place, but to say they have no point is naive.

 

[StorminNorman]

It is not odd at all. Theft involves depriving someone of their property, removing it from one person so another can have it. Copying obviously doesn't do that.

I obviously realize that musicians make music from selling CD's and that studios make money by selling tickets - but capitalism isn't about preserving the status quo. For one, studies have shown that musicians who embrace the internet - rather than fighting it - have done quite well. Further, the more people who enjoy the music are more likely to pay to see a musician perform. The studio producer may become obsolete, but if a musician can themselves get their product into the hands of their audience, they have no real utility in the market anyway.

The use of someone's likeness is a very valid point, but that is where fraud comes into play. If you claim that someone has endorsed something, and people buy it for/or in part because of, that reason (why else say it?), then you have fraud on the consumer.

 

[Prison Mike]

**** you Congress

 

[Scourge2099]

The country is going down the toilet and is going to possibly default on its debt , but this is what Congress is worried about ? Jesus H Christ I hate being American sometimes.

 

[StorminNorman]

Hate your government, love being an American. This country was founded on hating your government. Hatred of government is a patriotic cause.

 

[SuperFerret]

I was all in agreement with Norman and then he had to go all patriotic. Meh. I still agree with his IP stuff.

 

[StorminNorman]

I was all in agreement with Norman and then he had to go all patriotic. Meh. I still agree with his IP stuff.

 

[SuperFerret]

And you like horrible art?

 

[StorminNorman]

It was the first thing I saw on photobucket. I originally posted a bad Captain America costume, but I didn't want to risk being flagged for not self-hosting the pic.

(DAMN HYPE IP LAWS!)

 

[BlackLantern]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...ook-against-hollywood-backed-piracy-bill.html

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing tomorrow on the Stop Online Piracy Act, a measure that would give the U.S. attorney general and copyright holders new powers to cut off financial support to “rogue websites” accused of trafficking in goods spanning knockoff watches to fake pharmaceuticals to pirated movies.


The House bill and a similar Senate measure have pitted the nation’s top Internet companies against the U.S. film and music industries, which want the government to halt counterfeiting and intellectual-property theft. Web companies say the proposed legislation would require them to police the Internet, jeopardizing the growth of online services.
“Unfortunately, the bills as drafted would expose law- abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that would require monitoring of websites,” Google, Facebook, Yahoo Inc. and EBay Inc. wrote in a letter today to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees.


“We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job- creation, as well as to our nation’s cybersecurity,” the companies wrote in the letter. It was also signed by AOL Inc., Twitter Inc., LinkedIn Corp., Mozilla Corp. and Zynga Inc.

 

[TheDragonator]

Political forum is the other way, bro.

 

[BlackLantern]

I was gonna put it there....but its a fairly general topic I though

 

[TheDragonator]

If not the political forum, the Gaming forum would be a better spot.

 

[BlackLantern]

its not just gaming....this is about the internet at large....

 

[enterthemadness]

Yep. Hopefully good in the end wins. Internet doesn't need policing.