SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it
m.washingtonpost.com
SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it
1–10 of 57 posts
Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it
#2Isn't a felony supposed to be for serious crimes like assault?
Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it
#3Isn't a felony supposed to be for serious crimes like assault?
Yes, hence why Obama is pushing for it to be felony. He/Hollywood wants to discourage and intimidate people at whatever level he/they can get away with so people do not stream and instead go to theatres or stream at websites they are supported by the producers. It is all about the money.
Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it
#4Isn't a felony supposed to be for serious crimes like assault?
It is, but tax evasion and fraud are also considered to be a felony which makes this somewhat less outrageous, perhaps.
(Not that I think this should be considered a felony. Quite the contrary, actually.)
Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it
#5Isn't a felony supposed to be for serious crimes like assault?
Yes, hence why Obama is pushing for it to be felony. He/Hollywood wants to discourage and intimidate people at whatever level he/they can get away with so people do not stream and instead go to theatres or stream at websites they are supported by the producers. It is all about the money.
This is the part I'm really confused about. How are people supposed to know which source is authorised for distribution and which isn't? In some countries you can go to BBC iPlayer and just play some movies. In some you can't. In some you can use Hulu, in some you can't.
Basically if I google "watch Xyz online" I will get a long list of results where I'm 2 clicks away from watching Xyz - how am I supposed to know which of those are legal sources? For some movies the top result can be youtube. For others it will be watchseries.{whatever tld they use this month}. Unless everyone makes all their agreements and contracts public, I can't reasonably tell if they are allowed to redistribute.
Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it
#6Absolutely ridiculous. There is no reason copyrights should be protected more strongly than traditional property rights. If I trespass on someone's land, it's not a felony. If I build a hotel on someone's land, it's still not a felony. The redress for copyright violations should be civil lawsuits, not criminal prosecutions.
Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it
#7Absolutely ridiculous. There is no reason copyrights should be protected more strongly than traditional property rights. If I trespass on someone's land, it's not a felony. If I build a hotel on someone's land, it's still not a felony. The redress for copyright violations should be civil lawsuits, not criminal prosecutions.
> There is no reason copyrights should be protected more strongly than traditional property rights.
There is one: lobbying.
Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it
#8Let me take a guess, the lobbyist for Microsoft suggest an "improvement" that makes running pipelight (http://fds-team.de/cms/articles/2013-08/pipelight-using-silv...) also a felony.
Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it
#9Is anyone really surprised? Congress and the President haven't cared about the constitution thus far, why would it be any different now?
Eighth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
A bit excessive? Throw the streamers in with the murderers and rapist, they'll come out better people.
Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it
#10Isn't a felony supposed to be for serious crimes like assault?
It is, but tax evasion and fraud are also considered to be a felony which makes this somewhat less outrageous, perhaps. (Not that I think this should be considered a felony. Quite the contrary, actually.)
tax evasion is an felony because its a crime against the state. All crimes against the state is considered serious by the state.
Fraud is about money, and money is issued by the state. As such, fraud is a crime against the state and thus considered as serious by the state.
If we view copyright as an granted monopoly by the state, then declaring it as a felony would follow a historical pattern. As a property hover, it does not.