Copyright Law

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Gatehawk, Jul 10, 2011.

  1. Gatehawk

    Gatehawk Gooner

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Posts:
    383
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Likes:
    +0
    I'm not sure if there's thread about this yet since it came out 2 months ago. Regardless, I'm sure I speak for every American when I say this is complete bullshit. If this becomes official, innocent people could go to jail for the dumbest reasons in history. For example, Casey Anthony gets away with murder and someone happens to post something on youtube that happens to have copyrighted material on it and they go to jail?

    White House wants new copyright law crackdown | Privacy Inc. - CNET News
     
  2. Snark

    Snark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Posts:
    1,570
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +1
    Would it be safe for me to presume that you don't know the ratio decidendi of the Anthony decision? If so, might I suggest that you not make any judgment on the innocence or lack thereof of Anthony.

    On to the copyright matter however, I do agree it seems rather heavy handed. Wiretapping in particular seems overly stringent, but I get the feeling the bill in its proposed form won't pass through without heavy modification.

    That said, it's not a secret that current copyright law is inadequate in the internet age. I'm not a 100% certain about America, but in Australia, internet service providers have been held not to be liable for authorizing the infringement of copyright by its users (Roadshow Films v iiNet [2010] FCA 24), leaving copyright owners few realistic options against infringes. To the best of my knowledge, copyright law has yet to find a suitable remedy for owners.
     
  3. Gatehawk

    Gatehawk Gooner

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Posts:
    383
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Likes:
    +0
    So you mean to tell me someone who took an entire month to tell people her daughter was missing and while they were searching for her, the mother was out partying, looks innocent? Besides if you haven't heard, according to the jury they felt sick to their stomach while reading the not guilty verdict.

    Youtube understands better than anyone, they allow you to post copyrighted stuff as long as you make it clear that your not trying to use it for monetary gain.
     
  4. Snark

    Snark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Posts:
    1,570
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +1
    The standard of proof in criminal law is that the guilt of the accused is beyond reasonable doubt. This means that guilt must be so conclusive, that there is no possible alternative explanation. This isn't a question of likelihood, so long as there is a reasonable alternative, then guilt is not proven, even if the alternative is unlikely. Nothing you listed proves guilt, let alone guilt so conclusive that there is no other reasonable explanation.

    Youtube is hardly a sufficient remedy for copyright holders. A lack of desire for profit is not a sufficient defense against most claims of infringement.

    Amongst the rights provided to copyright holders are the right to make reproductions and the right to publish. Online streaming will likely infringe both these rights, regardless of whether there was an intention for monetary gain or not.
     
  5. x BlackMagnus x

    x BlackMagnus x Is not impressed

    Joined:
    May 16, 2009
    Posts:
    10,458
    News Credits:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    201
    Likes:
    +104
    The last thread about the Anthony case was deleted so lets keep off of that topic before the same happens here.
     
  6. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    23,501
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Likes:
    +130
    While I concede that companies with intellectual property do have rights to profits from those properties and rights to defend their claims, the anti-piracy and anti-copyright infringement policies as of late seem uncomfortably self-serving to large media/telecommunications corporations, and dangerously close to infringing on the rights to privacy and fair use of many internet users.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2011
  7. Gatehawk

    Gatehawk Gooner

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Posts:
    383
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Likes:
    +0
    I was just using the Anthony thing as an example and was never intending on it turning into the main topic of this thread at all.

    I agree, this would simply be pandering to the large and corrupt corporations and not to the people, it's just eliminating our freedoms as citizens of the USA.
     
  8. TrueNomadSkies

    TrueNomadSkies Airachnid's ratservant

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Posts:
    15,867
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    226
    Likes:
    +6
    Like, I can understand getting shafted when you didn't break the law or otherwise without the chance to defend yourself & make necessary appeals (aka, the stuff from 07 or whatever which had to do with instant prosecution after a certain number of investigations) but something like this really doesn't seem like it's in the same boat.

    I mean, when you steal & share someone else's work without their consent, you're choosing to break the law. Taking that into account, you should either not to do this at all/stop doing this all together, or be content in the fact that you're gambling (be it on something minor in the grand scheme of things) & might get caught in the process.
     
  9. Noideaforaname

    Noideaforaname Pico, let's go up to Zuma

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Posts:
    8,178
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +194
    I think a big problem is many people don't know how copyright works (or that they actually are breaking laws). Many just assume since it's on the internet it's public domain, or incorrectly try to apply fair use, or try to rationalize infringement as "free advertising," or assume it's OK since they aren't getting paid for it, or think that since the original creator hasn't defended any and every piece of their work they "automatically loose their copyrights".... all of which is wrong and/or absurd.
     
  10. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    23,501
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Likes:
    +130
    This is true, and I concede that these companies have a legal right (and obligation, in some legal senses) to defend their copyrights. If you are caught in possession of copyrighted material, you are in violation of the law and can be subject to prosecution.

    The details of this prosecution are what irks me, however. We've had the interpol "$250,000 fine!" warnings on movies and stuff for decades now, and one could argue that seems like a bit much for simply possessing a bootleg, as opposed to running a duplication/selling operation, but with digital media, the situation has changed and its a much more complex debate. My main issue is the idea that ISPs (especially ones owned and operated by the same media companies in question) being given a right to scrutinize the private information and traffic of their customers, which I feel philosophically is as wrong as the post office reading your mail or your phone company listening in on your calls. In the above cases, sufficient evidence of a crime is required before a suspension of the right to privacy is an option, and in those cases it is the police/authorities who surveil, not the company who, through chain of ownership, has a vested interest in the outcome. I am also uncomfortable with these crimes being afforded the same level of seriousness as terrorism in terms of the aforementioned wiretapping and surveillance, a reduction in what constitutes "fair use", and setting sights on people managing websites who do not fall under the legal jurisdiction of the United States.
     
  11. TrueNomadSkies

    TrueNomadSkies Airachnid's ratservant

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Posts:
    15,867
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    226
    Likes:
    +6
    I get what you're saying, and the lines between this & other crimes are definitely one of the bigger issues.

    Like, should the punishment for stealing a transformer be on the same as a punishment for identity theft? Probably not, and privacy is always gonna play some sort of role.
     
  12. Gatehawk

    Gatehawk Gooner

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Posts:
    383
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Likes:
    +0
    The thing is anything, once it's on the internet, is pretty much fair game, I say as long as the person isn't stealing the stuff and using it for monetary game it's alright to an extent, it's basically getting that product to a wider base than just one location, such as someone who's too busy to watch a tv show when it's on can find it online and watch it. Pictures, on the other hand, shouldn't be copyrighted, once it's uploaded on the internet, it's 100% fair game, no one is really making money off of pictures they save off the internet, only the people who took the pictures is making money.
     
  13. Noideaforaname

    Noideaforaname Pico, let's go up to Zuma

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Posts:
    8,178
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +194
    Legally, no, it is not fair game. Putting a work (whether it be a picture, video, writing, music, anything one can create) online does not mean the original creator looses all rights to distribute it as they wish. Just because the internet makes it easy to copy & paste such things does not in any way make it right or legal. "© 2011 Joe Shmo" at the bottom of countless websites isn't just to look professional, it has actual legal weight.
    And just because someone isn't making a buck off it does not justify stealing and showing another's work. Pageviews, as silly as it sounds, are being stolen as well, and they are potential customers to the original creator.

    There are some exceptions, like proper fair use and if the creator chooses to place their work into public domain.
     
  14. Tekkaman Blade

    Tekkaman Blade Professor of Animation

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Posts:
    21,942
    News Credits:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Location:
    Georgia
    Likes:
    +151
    Isn't that article from March? If this is what I think it is, it comes up every year and is usually blocked in one house or another. Like it was again this year. The current plan from Hollywood is with the internet companies themselves. They will slow down service and send warnings to start out with. Hollywood wanted them to have people completely kicked of the net after a few strikes, but that got nixed. But yes crazy legislation like this happens all the time. The most recent one was going after youtube where they want people banned if any kind of copy written work shows up in a users account. This includes teenagers singing kareoke of their favorite songs. It was 10 strikes or something. a few years back companies wanted to lay claim to all non copy written images on the net. Basically if it had passed, unless you paid to have it copywritten companies could go onto your website and take your images and use it for their magazines. Thankfully it got blocked.
     
  15. Deceptijohn

    Deceptijohn Metallikato Master

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Posts:
    2,051
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +1
  16. Snark

    Snark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Posts:
    1,570
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +1
    This guy knows how copyright law works. Listen to him.
     
  17. Sokar

    Sokar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,339
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    201
    Likes:
    +3
    As someone who has had their work pirated (a digital textbook with virtual skeletons that took over a year to produce), I've got to say that this suggested change in piracy law (even though I don't live in the states) is absolutely ridiculous.

    Sure, technically I might have made more money if the people who copied my work had purchased it, but honestly there is no way to guarantee that they would have bought it anyway. Further, the information still got out there, and perhaps next time they will buy it.

    This whole concept of 'lost revenue' is absolutely overblown, and really the only penalties I can really see that should carry any serious weight are if you are purposely reproducing another individuals copyrighted works and putting it out as your own, or if you are mass distributing it like the companies that make bootleg cd's. There might be some revenue lost, but at the same time it can actually lead to some gain as well.

    Take the streaming community for example. According to this bill it's illegal, and yet in many ways streaming is like a huge commercial for the games being streamed. I never would have even considered things like Terreria had I never seen them on stream. Plus, tournaments like the EVO tournament get huge number of viewers who would otherwise might not have even heard of the tournament before. These tournaments can have a big impact on the community and subsequently the sales of those games, so to gimp the streaming community by making what they do punishable with jail time would likely end up hurting those games in the long run.
     
  18. Gatehawk

    Gatehawk Gooner

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Posts:
    383
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Likes:
    +0
    I totally agree with that. It's the greed of the major corporations that's blinding them from the truth, that most of this stuff could actually help them in getting their product out there.
     

Share This Page