321–330 of 509 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even so, why is copyright infraction criminal? This is fighting something that just doesn't need to be fought and ratchets up copyright to levels of importance that it just doesn't deserve. We need to be toning down copyright, not cranking it up.
The vast majority of content creators disagree.
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…
- 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.
I could even see clever presentations like a pie chart illustrating how much of a bill is actually related to the topic at hand. That would make a fantastic tool for an opposition member to use in order to illustrate the absurdities of these omnibus bills.
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.
Why vote against it or veto when you can just never bring it to a vote?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without meaning to offend, that is not a good argument. If you rob a store and the employees have to quit their job, saying "I will spend the money somewhere else and that is where they will be working in the future" would not absolve you of the responsibility that you have indirectly damaged their livelihood.
The money/goods that I rob from a store cost a lot to reproduce, unlike movies. And I would scare people. This is more like me buying from store A than from store B. Am I robbing store B? Surely not giving to charity is worse than any other economic reallocation?
What do you mean by your first sentence? I am fairly sure that movies do actually cost quite a lot to produce.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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…
You can always have a podcast that reviews songs, and people have been reviewing songs for as long as there has been music without the need to play substantial portions of the song itself. You just can't be the one distributing songs as a commercial enterprise and then saying that because there's a video of you dancing that makes copyright infringement acceptable.
More of this “war on drugs” “tough on crime” mentality from Republicans? When will we learn?
More of this “war on drugs” “tough on crime” mentality from Republicans? When will we learn?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's absurd that everyone is forced to evaluate and have a single opinion/vote on all these completely separate issues as a unit. They aren't forced to, except by their own (collective) consent. They could vote to split the bill, propose smaller bills and vote down the bigger ones in preference, etc. Conglomerate bills are a tool to reach mutually tolerable compromise.
> mutually tolerable compromise This is just politispeak for quid-pro-quo. If conglomerate bills are outlawed then maybe we can vote on issues instead of on whether everyone's back is sufficiently scratched.
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…
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…
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.