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

[BlackLantern]

it actually is stealing....any copyrighted material downloaded or distributed without consent of the holder of the license for said material or owner can be considered stolen or pirated

the recent amendment to copyright and digital distribution law covered that loophole

 

[LOBO3315a]

And if the holder of that license no longer exists? It becomes Public domain, or forever unwatchable?

 

[BlackLantern]

And if the holder of that license no longer exists? It becomes Public domain, or forever unwatchable?

that one....copyright law is now really similar to the IRS (as it relates to taxable and not taxable income) in that it is basically set up so that something has to be openly declared "public domain"

like Sherlock Holmes, the character is public domain, hence why The Asylum did that straight to video film with Ianto from Torchwood and dinosaurs and stuff

 

[BlackLantern]

hell I want my Bionic Six box set but NBC/Universal has the license for it so Im SOL for the time being

 

[enterthemadness]

Is this good or bad?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40756299/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets

The rules would ban high-speed Internet providers like Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications from blocking lawful traffic, while recognizing the need to manage network congestion and perhaps charge based on Internet usage.

Is the freedom of internet usage going bye bye?

 

[Timstuff]

Is this good or bad?

That's what I've been trying to figure out, too. In all the discussions I've read there's been lots of passionate arguing, but I can't for the life of me understand what each side's point is. One side is arguing that without net neutrality laws, internet providers will be able to restrict your bandwidth on "non-preferred" websites or even block them outright to influence people's internet usage. The other side seems to be arguing that inserting net neutrality laws will do the exact same thing, except it will be the government deciding how to control your internet usage. This is obviously a very complicated issue, and frankly I do not understand it well enough to have an opinion on it, which is frustrating because I am normally quite opinionated.

 

[The Squirrel]

I think the government controls enough already. Stay out of the interwebs.

 

[enterthemadness]

Not looking good..

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/12/21/obama-fcc-caves-net-neutrality-tuesday-betrayal-assured

 

[DACrowe]

So wait, are they saying internet providers can't block certain websites due to licensing fees? That's kind of good....?....but at the same time they're allowing providers to charge us based on what websites we go to and the government now can regulate that....WTF.

I don't know the ins-and-outs of this but for some reason, I suspect this is not a good thing for free space.

 

[StorminNorman]

The FCC shouldn't have the ability to do any of this.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

this will all end in tears

 

[Paradoxium]

A chunk of the problems Net Neutrality hopes to resolve are (a result of) "privileges" granted to certain companies by the government. The easier solution to rid of these "privileges" that has no business being there in the first place. This is why this mess is so confusing for some. Net Neutrality is that slippery slope those control freaks want.

I rather have net freedom than this "Net Neutrality" bill.

 

[enterthemadness]

Could one say this is a NWO thing? Or just human greed?

http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_netneutrality_3things/



EDIT:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BJ5DF20101222

But the FCC did allow Internet providers like Comcast, AT&T Inc and Verizon Communications Inc to "reasonably" manage their networks and to charge consumers based on levels of Internet usage.

 

[Youk]

i'm for net neutrality. it's better not to let the corporations get their greedy little hands on the internet so they can try to squeeze out the small businesses who can't compete with them on a monetary scale.

 

[Kelly]

Is this being done by a political party specifically? I ask because I'm not really much into politics but my family is hardcore republican. And often try and convince me on their views. Tonight they ran into the room raving about this, but said that it's being done by the democrats. That they are all evil and it won't matter because the republicans are getting rid of it next month.

I'm not sure they really know what it is.

There is a bi-partisan push against this....so not really sure if there is a specific party for it...

Anytime 7 people can make a huge decision like this....I don't like it.

 

[The Squirrel]

Original Article:

Here they go again: Big business's lobbyists are launching another attack on Internet freedom. Senators are considering a "Ten Strikes" bill to make it a felony to stream copyrighted content -- like music in the background of a Youtube video -- more than ten times.

As the writers at TechDirt point out, under this bill you could go to jail for posting video of your friends singing karaoke:

The entertainment industry is freaking out about sites that embed and stream infringing content, and want law enforcement to put people in jail over it, rather than filing civil lawsuits.... We already pointed to one possibility: that people embedding YouTube videos could face five years in jail. Now, others are pointing out that it could also put kids who lip sync to popular songs, and post the resulting videos on YouTube, in jail as well.

That's right: Ten strikes and you could get jail time. Less than a month ago, the Hollywood industry magazine, Variety, reported, "Industry lobbyists pressed House members on Wednesday to pass legislation that would make illegal streaming of movies, TV shows and other types of content a felony...."

Well guys, it was fun while it lasted. Goodbye Internet.

 

[enterthemadness]

Posted this and the deadline article onto Facebook. I'm so mad, I am just fed up. I have lost zero interest in film now. thanks, ass faces. Hollywood is just corrupt and stupid.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

This could also affect people who steam their games online. If you make any money from it, you could get jail time.

 

[Kelly]

Some of those people that post their friends singing kareoke should be fined.....some of it is terrible.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Bad taste is not a crime.

 

[Kelly]

Yeeeeeeeees it is.....

 

[DACrowe]

I think singing along at a bar would be considered Fair Use.

It's unsurprising as Hollywood probably loses hundreds of millions at least a year from people who stream. But this law would mean the arrest of the entire youth of America.

If it passes, and that is a big if, it will mean some poor bastards will be made examples of and after a year or so, enforcement will become lax. After Napster, they went after a dozen or so people. It effectively scared the majority away from downloading to either iTunes or streaming. But now, unless it is done in a stupid place or by egregious amounts, few are arrested for downloading music. This is Hollywood's attempt to save face and money. But it hasn't become law just yet.

 

[Kelly]

I just pay for whatever I download from Amazon.

Keeps me out of trouble, keeps me within the law, and keeps me away from viruses.

There are plenty of above the law streaming places on the internet. The laws ve been in place for awhile, if people would just follow them, tlhere wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Wild Hog]

The bill is harmless.

It's basically an amendment to pre-existing language with no relevant implications. The vast majority of video game material on Youtube is going to fall under Fair Use anyway, and the text in no way alters the definition of Fair Use. The bill applies only to Criminal infringement.

Dude is just trying to scaremonger people. It's a 2 page bill ffs. I could reproduce it here. I think I will:

Originally Posted by Bill text
SECTION 1. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT.

(a) Amendments to Section 2319 of Title 18- Section 2319 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (b)--

(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and

(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:

‘(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if--

‘(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and

‘(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or

‘(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;’; and

(2) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:

‘(2) the terms ‘reproduction’, ‘distribution’, and ‘public performance’ refer to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under clauses (1), (3), (4), and (6), respectively of section 106 (relating to exclusive rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections 107 through 122, of title 17;’.

(b) Amendment to Section 506 of Title 17- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting ‘or public performance’ after ‘distribution’ the first place it appears; and

(2) in paragraph (3)--

(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘or public performance’ after ‘unauthorized distribution’; and

(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘or public performance’ after ‘distribution’.

Again, most of this is covered under Fair Use. Youtube already shoots down copyright violators, all this does is change the fine structures. Moreover IIRC the very purchase of a game gives the purchaser a license to use the footage. Finally, both conditions (10 uploads and demonstable economic harm) must be met. Given the interactive nature of video games, all video game uploads are basically free advertisement.

 

[dnno1]

The bill is harmless.

It's basically an amendment to pre-existing language with no relevant implications. The vast majority of video game material on Youtube is going to fall under Fair Use anyway, and the text in no way alters the definition of Fair Use. The bill applies only to Criminal infringement.

Dude is just trying to scaremonger people. It's a 2 page bill ffs. I could reproduce it here. I think I will:

Again, most of this is covered under Fair Use. Youtube already shoots down copyright violators, all this does is change the fine structures. Moreover IIRC the very purchase of a game gives the purchaser a license to use the footage. Finally, both conditions (10 uploads and demonstable economic harm) must be met. Given the interactive nature of video games, all video game uploads are basically free advertisement.

You have to be careful with the whole "Fair Use" argumet. If it can be proven that the use of the work is for profit, then the fair use argument can not be used. Nowadays, a lot of the YouTube and other videos have Google ads, which means that somebody is making money from the views of the copyrighted work. That would mean that the fair use argument can not be used (and in a lot of cases, those videos get taken down).