Hitler reacts to SOPA

[JWR]

Originally Posted by Gz Rider

I think we see from the reaction of congress on this issue that the people still rule. If we really lived in the world of big brother (I'm not saying that some aspects don't exist) the bill would be law by now. Even if the law was passed, if it did shut down the interenet as suggested, I think it would be repealed.

In the 80's a question was posed regarding the recording of television broadcasts. It was determined at that time (and I think the law still stands) that recording of broadcast TV (even broadcast movies)would not be a violation of copyrights. They had to shape new laws for the new technology (VCR'S).

I have alot of confidence that there is a way to protect copyrights online and allow most of the interent to continue.

Usually when a law is passed, there is so much hidden in said law, that an appeal would be so long and costly...won't happen.

What happened here was pro-active not reactive.

You know how the law makers are...We are right and you are wrong.


Remember it all comes down to MONEY.

[alantf]

Originally Posted by JWR

You know how the law makers are...We are right and you are wrong.

I think this old post proves the point.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5341

[JWR]

You really don't know what that law coat tailed onto.

Just like pork spending, has nothing to do with the original bill.

Like these:
England

With the exception of carrots, most goods may not be sold on Sunday.
London Hackney Carriages (taxis/cabs) must carry a bale of hay and a sack of oats.

It is illegal to be drunk on Licensed Premises (in a pub or bar).
It is illegal for two adult men to have sex in the same house as a third person.
It is illegal to leave baggage unattended.
Picking up abandoned baggage is as act of terrorism.

It is illegal for a lady to eat chocolates on a public conveyance.

Any boy under the age of 10 may not see a naked mannequin.

A bed may not be hung out of a window.

No cows may be driven down the roadway between 10 AM and 7 PM unless there is prior approval from the Commissioner of Police.

Since 1313, MPs are not allowed to don armor in Parliament.

Any person found breaking a boiled egg at the sharp end will be sentenced to 24 hours in the village stock.

[alantf]

Originally Posted by JWR

England

With the exception of carrots, most goods may not be sold on Sunday.

And you can buy a porno mag on a Sunday, but not a bible.

Over here,shops are only allowed to open on a Sunday in "tourist areas". When the cruise liners arrive in Santa Cruz on a Sunday (which most liners do), the passengers disembark, but all the shops are shut. Being designated as a "port" they can't open, so the shops lose all the custom, and the passengers have nowhere to go. Spanish logic?

[mrlmd1]

You can copy a movie off TV on a VCR, but you are not allowed to resell it. That's the point of copyright laws. If it's for your own personal use and it is broadcast free to watch with no charge, you are allowed to copy it. You cannot copy something which is not put out for free, for which there is a charge, like music or videos that are for sale, skirting around the purchase.

[Gz Rider]

...

[mole2]

Originally Posted by Gz Rider

That was my understanding.

My point was that there may be some sort of middle ground that could be found such as some quoting of copyrighted material if used on a non commercial website or something like that...

To me, there is no middle ground. You as the copyright holder have the courts at your disposal. To ask the taxpayers to pay via a new law is unjust. In the example above Dupo would have this domain blocked without any input except an accusation. It would be up to HIM to pursue as to why it is blocked and sue to have it reinstated. The obligation is then flipped from the copyright holder to another person who would have to pay. Think about what would happen on Ebay. All my listings contain pictures of products I sell. If, at a whim, the copyright holder complained, Ebay would be shut down.

Understand something. This is being forced by the RIAA et al and they DO have the money to pursue copyright infringements. The little guy they accuse doesn't so there is no basis for this law. I posted a video on Youtube of an afternoon ride with music to it. Under SOPA they could shut Youtube down for a perceived copyright infringement.

[Gz Rider]

...

[mole2]

Originally Posted by Gz Rider

Yes but that is expensive. RIAA does not and will not defend every case of copyright infringement they serve only their clients in the recording industry but many other kinds of copyrights exist. Also why should RIAA make lawyers rich when a system of addressing the flagrant infringement that exists today would be so easy. If a site is posting music illegally, down goes the site. That won't happen because sites will start to monitor themselves better and if they don't then they deserve it.

Who would you rather see have to pay, the victim of theft or a thief? The copyright holder has done NOTHING wrong. Why should the burden be on them? In JWR's example, my guess would be the site would not be shut down. If that risk did exist, Dupo (or other moderators) would carefully monitor postings to be sure copyrighted items are not being posted. (You do understand that those are the rules of this board already right?)

If you take a picture of an item you own, my understanding is that is not a copyright infringement. If you go to the website of the company that produced that item and copy their picture onto your ad, that would be an infringement. The simple solution, take your own pictures.

The music you posted for your own purposes belongs to someone else. They make music for a living. If anyone can take it for free then you are putting them out of business. I don't think you deserve the :skull: sentence for that but it was illegal. The fact that RIAA has money doesn't matter. They should not have to spend it when there is an easier way. If there are illegal things posted on youtube then what can I say, down it goes.

I think the purpose and focus of the bills was to say, we (the gubberment) understands the most people do not know or understand copyright law so we will put the burden onto website owners who do understand what is and isn't legal. Yes, the website owners object. Why would that surprise anyone? What we all want is to do whatever we want with no regulation- until of course someone steals from us.

You don't seem to grasp what SOPA is about. You have copyright and SOPA confused.

Let's use my video as an example. If the copyright holder of the music deems I violated their copyright they can take me to court to defend their copyright and have my video removed and be award compensation. That could be as little as small claims court with the intent of having the video taken down. Anyone can afford that.

Now comes SOPA. If ANYONE reports the video as copyright infringement (as mentioned above) then GZ250BIKE.COM will have it's domain blocked due to the link and YOUTUBE.COM will have it's domain blocked for hosting the video. Do you understand? It has nothing to do with who caused the copyright infringement. It allows the blocking of domains even if they are unaware of an infringement. It's basically guilty until proven innocent and the harm is done without proof.

[Gz Rider]

...