361–370 of 509 posts
- Everyone discussing this law should really read the text The difficulty in doing so is a big part of the problem. As per AOC's comments on twitter yesterday, at 2PM Members of Congress got 5000 pages of bill dropped on their desk with a vote call at 4PM. The whole thing needs to be much more transparent.
- Everyone discussing this law should really read the text The difficulty in doing so is a big part of the problem. As per AOC's comments on twitter yesterday, at 2PM Members of Congress got 5000 pages of bill dropped on their desk with a vote call at 4PM. The whole thing needs to be much more transparent.
Shouldn’t the collective default be to simply vote “no” if it’s given like this I don’t know why the behavior would exist otherwise..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, if you are the one distributing the podcast directly on a platform you control and the platform is primarily to distribute music you don't own the copyright to, it doesn't matter if you happen to be dancing while the music is playing, that is copyright infringement and under this law would be criminal. You can always have a podcast that reviews songs, and people have been reviewing songs for as long as there has…
"Vocal coach reacts!" I, for one, will be glad if these go away. (Plus, get them out of my feed, youtube. I don't watch them.) Apparently they're so successful that other people are doing it now. I saw someone totally unrelated to music reacting to amateur music songs.
This title is misleading: > The Protecting Lawful Streaming Act would apply only to commercial, for-profit streaming piracy services. The law will not sweep in normal practices by online service providers, good faith business disputes, noncommercial activities, or in any way impact individuals who access pirated streams or unwittingly stream unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. Individuals who might use pirate s…
Wasn't this already a felony? I clearly remember getting into legal problems with MPAA when I was 15 years old and made an online version of Popcorn Time, and that wasn't P2P.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like if I, e.g. have a podcast where I play and review songs (without permission), I can be charged with a felony if I, say, take paid ads on the podcast. Perhaps simply a monetized streaming channel where I dance to the current hits is enough to put me in jail... it’s certainly seems enough to at least put me on trial. I think you have to wonder: what’s insufficient about the civil and criminal laws? What is…
> has no commercially significant purpose or use other than to publicly perform works protected under title 17
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The economic re-allocation doesn't have to be overnight or even in a single decade. It isn't as if the revenue suddenly goes to zero and the industry is nuked.
No matter how long it will take they will have to start fresh and whatever experience, knowledge and education they had becomes useless. Much more likely they simply become unemployed and stay that way. That is an awful lot of time wasted of their lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still funny money. You can't just take that $4 price tag for streaming a movie through Apple TV or wherever, and multiply it by the number of movies people illegally stream, and get a number that makes any sense. The idea that American households would spend an extra $230/year on average on movie rentals, if only those nasty content pirates would get out of their way, is just absurd. Especially when you consider…
I can't find it right now, but I swear there was a study that showed that people who pirated content also on average spent _more_ on digital entertainment. I remember pirating video games about 10-15 years ago to see if they were worthwhile, since the demo scene had pretty much died down. I'd end up buying the games I played through to completion as well.
Why are these bills 5000 page turds with all kinds of legal garbage thrown in? I wish Congress would pass a 1 paragraph bill that does one thing: say $1000 bucks to everyone making under $75k for 3 months and dare people to vote against or veto it.
This one is actually linked from TFA and is very short and readable as a pdf.
Basically some congresspeople wanted to pass the $600 stimulus check, and others bundled on the CASE Act with it. And this will pass because anyone opposing it "doesn't love America".
This title is misleading: > The Protecting Lawful Streaming Act would apply only to commercial, for-profit streaming piracy services. The law will not sweep in normal practices by online service providers, good faith business disputes, noncommercial activities, or in any way impact individuals who access pirated streams or unwittingly stream unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. Individuals who might use pirate s…
This appears to be correct from reading the (very short) text[0]. Everyone discussing this law should really read the text instead of reading whatever nonsense the media is spinning. Here's the full text of what is being prohibited: > PROHIBITED ACT. > — It shall be unlawful to willfully, and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service…
If you look at (3), an activity doesn't even need to be for commercial gain if it's "intentionally marketed," and moreover it does not need to actually perform a work to be in violation - it simply needs to be marketed as such and "offer" a service.
Which means that even an individual leeching a torrent (sending no copyrighted material in outbound packets) might arguably be in violation of the act, simply by sending out packets that advertise their membership in the network and the potential for them to upload copyrighted material.
IANAL and this would need to be tested in court. But it's dangerous ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then don't watch those movies. The fact is, many people enjoy these things - there's market research on that - and you are not the target audience. The sum amount of enjoyment from a big budget production is much higher than what 3B1B produces (who I also like!). And that enjoyment would not exist if not for IP law.
I could live with that if you didn't try to impose their values on me. I want to be free to write whatever code I want in the privacy of my own bedroom. I want to be free to understand my democratic government institutions. I want to be able to reverse-engineer things I own. I want to understand the world around me fully, and completely, to within the limits of my intellect. I want to build school systems where kids…