Jay, tighter restrictions doesn't mean "adding gatekeepers".
Tighter restrictions that are criminalizing technology equates to using a government mandate to install a middleman. The UFC did this in criminalizing Bryan McCarthy for linking as well as trying to fight Justin.tv for what users are streaming. That is "adding gatekeepers".
I was speaking of the specific case of a school library streaming a movie to students as part of a course. If the fair use comes only for actual students of the class, having the system setup to limit access to only students registered for that class in that school would be perhaps a proper way to retain the fair use.
By not allowing outside knowledge or outside commentary, you're arguing against supplemental knowledge. KA allows people to learn outside of a college course at their own pace. What you're stating is that people should either learn inside a school course or outside without any emergent use of both techniques. Ironically, KA started for a specific set of students but others learned from stumbling on the bullcleo account. And you want to take away this option...
In the narrow case of school libraries, which is what we are talking about, and preservation of "fair use" for their students, keeping control over who can and cannot see a streaming movie as part of their course work is the best option.
Which makes no sense if the streamed movie is on Youtube for all to see. Funny, you keep talking about control. Yet, you don't explain why there now needs to be control of a product. The point is either to allow people to see a product or not. Make up your mind. Oh, and since you're sure to dismiss the exceptions to copyright: Fair use drives a large part of the US economy. But I'm sure you know that since you have so much faith in copyright. So you've failed at making your points.
Where is the copyright issue here?
Ever heard of linking? Twitter allows links so it's at risk of having to change what it does.
It wouldn't say that they don't exist, but clearly the free for all mentality would be gone.
The only one that has that mentality seems to be you. Everyone uses it for their needs and purposes. All you continue to meme about is how it's this pirate haven. No matter how much someone tells you and SHOWS you otherwise, here you go into another pirate rant for the abstract purpose of saying "but... But... Piracy". It's rather annoying.
Interpretation is always there, like it or not.
Try that paragraph again, but this time stop rambling. ICE went out of its way to criminalize the seizures and they wouldn't be backtracking on so many fronts. You admit that they're Disney's cops and the fact remains their interpretations stretch the limits of what's allowed under the law. Merely talking to one side of a civil suit, practicing prior restraint on websites, and showing the corruption in our system isn't helping our economy grow.
And my money goes to games moreso than music. I haven't found a CD I wanted in years. But game music is free with no direct way for people to get it other than to download it. Maybe if it was $2-$5 for a game CD I would think about it and buy a ton. As it stands, I have to find it all on different sites because no one caters to that market.
Ironically, most unions are monopolies themselves. There's nothing wrong with collective bargaining, but if you only have one union representing you, it kind of defeats the point.
Like an idiot such as yourself, that doesn't work in the business, would fucking know.
And why would I want to work as a lobbyist? Obviously, throwing smoke and mirrors to a legitimate question, which you do all the time isn't helping anyone. If it's so easy for a business to prosper with SOPA, with a dagger hanging to your back and a guillotine looking to cut off your head, I'd like to know how exactly a business does so. If there's benefits to this legislation, there is obviously a lot lacking here if the entire US is up in arms about this.
Creative America claimed to have generated more than 100.000 communication to legislators on the bill and it did.
Take a deep breath. Now let it out.
They've sent a copy of a letter to 3 people in Congress. Only ~4200 people have signed the CA letter.
Demand Progress has had over 8,000 people sign their petition IIRC. Now, if we're to say the same thing, Demand Progress has more letters sent out than CA. So it's up to you. You can use the fake number. But no matter how you slice it, more people are against SOPA than what CA is harping about.
Yes, it's a tactic that worked in the UK. If you make people fight, you can vilify them. And you can say that the police are justified. They are already militarized enough. Especially looking at the Berkeley demonstrations.
The great good could be served by creating a system with tighter restrictions.
Which serves nothing but allowing gatekeepers where there need not be gatekeepers.
Perhaps, as an example, the system will only allow the video to be streamed to students actually registered in the class, and only for a given period, example.
Congratulations, you've just said that Khan Academy is obsolete by allowing people to learn without being in a college course.
That would limit the playback to what has been considered by some as fair use, which negating the chance of infringing uses.
The better answer is more exceptions allows more freedoms, which allows more innovations.
DMCA safe harbor created Youtube, because without it, Youtube would have died under the normal copyright laws.
Thereby showing how erroneous Youtube, Twitter, Soundcloud, and other user submitted sites would not be around because of copyright laws.
Intentions and enforcement rarely match, because judges have to interpret the laws as well as the DoJ and other authorities.
Wrong. The DoJ isn't there to interpret the laws, merely execute. And they're stretching laws to make up new ones in being the copyright cops.
I just find it odd how this is looking more and more like a witch hunt for piracy than someone actually interested in making content available for consumers.
Let's try this again. Digital unauthorized downloading of files has always been a service issue. Not a legal one. While those in the movie and music industry continue to try to make it a legal issue, it has always been ineffective in trying to litigate piracy away, which has NEVER worked.
Cyberlockers such as Google Music or Rapidshare continue to fulfill niches that the MPAA and RIAA will not fulfill. While criminalizing linking is within their grasp, the cheaper outcome maintains that those within the industry build their own platforms of commerce instead of complaining to Congress.
The litigation route continues to work against those that use it, vilifying their approach and showing the ineffectiveness of illegal search and seizures, faulty evidence collection, and lawsuits based on circumstantial evidence.
But of course, making tapes was a crime too. Great way to enforce the law... Just think everyone is a criminal.
Based on ONE tracker, I'm supposed to believe that this says most content is deemed illegal, and ignore the more nuanced view that shows how the industry is to blame for it all. Ready to try to change the subject again because you're going to lose this exchange.
For example, in the more than five years since the first short films arrived on Apple's iTunes Store, the company has yet to bring movie rentals and downloads to more than a handful of countries in Europe (Britain, Germany, France and Ireland), as well as Canada, Mexico and Japan. Netflix streaming only arrived in Canada in September and has yet to surface anywhere else. And Amazon's video-on-demand service hasn't even gone beyond the United States. yet.
But let's ask David Price how he feels about availability of legal content:
I think the availability of legit content in the US may be one reason why infringing use is lower in the country than elsewhere worldwide: the US has Hulu, Netflix, Amazon VOD, Vudu, streaming content from the tv networks, etc. This level of availability just can't be found elsewhere. Further, the content in the greatest demand online is that which originates from the US -- television shows and films in particular -- which often take a while before they appear in other countries.
Well whaddaya know? The more legal channels, the less piracy. Did someone already research that?
On the post: When Even The Librarians Are Against SOPA...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tighter restrictions that are criminalizing technology equates to using a government mandate to install a middleman. The UFC did this in criminalizing Bryan McCarthy for linking as well as trying to fight Justin.tv for what users are streaming. That is "adding gatekeepers".
I was speaking of the specific case of a school library streaming a movie to students as part of a course. If the fair use comes only for actual students of the class, having the system setup to limit access to only students registered for that class in that school would be perhaps a proper way to retain the fair use.
By not allowing outside knowledge or outside commentary, you're arguing against supplemental knowledge. KA allows people to learn outside of a college course at their own pace. What you're stating is that people should either learn inside a school course or outside without any emergent use of both techniques. Ironically, KA started for a specific set of students but others learned from stumbling on the bullcleo account. And you want to take away this option...
In the narrow case of school libraries, which is what we are talking about, and preservation of "fair use" for their students, keeping control over who can and cannot see a streaming movie as part of their course work is the best option.
Which makes no sense if the streamed movie is on Youtube for all to see. Funny, you keep talking about control. Yet, you don't explain why there now needs to be control of a product. The point is either to allow people to see a product or not. Make up your mind. Oh, and since you're sure to dismiss the exceptions to copyright: Fair use drives a large part of the US economy. But I'm sure you know that since you have so much faith in copyright. So you've failed at making your points.
Where is the copyright issue here?
Ever heard of linking? Twitter allows links so it's at risk of having to change what it does.
It wouldn't say that they don't exist, but clearly the free for all mentality would be gone.
The only one that has that mentality seems to be you. Everyone uses it for their needs and purposes. All you continue to meme about is how it's this pirate haven. No matter how much someone tells you and SHOWS you otherwise, here you go into another pirate rant for the abstract purpose of saying "but... But... Piracy". It's rather annoying.
Interpretation is always there, like it or not.
Try that paragraph again, but this time stop rambling. ICE went out of its way to criminalize the seizures and they wouldn't be backtracking on so many fronts. You admit that they're Disney's cops and the fact remains their interpretations stretch the limits of what's allowed under the law. Merely talking to one side of a civil suit, practicing prior restraint on websites, and showing the corruption in our system isn't helping our economy grow.
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Refuses To Hear Wider Tech Industry Concerns About SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Refuses To Hear Wider Tech Industry Concerns About SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: SOPA Will Have Serious Implications For Sports Fans And Blogs
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Refuses To Hear Wider Tech Industry Concerns About SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And why would I want to work as a lobbyist? Obviously, throwing smoke and mirrors to a legitimate question, which you do all the time isn't helping anyone. If it's so easy for a business to prosper with SOPA, with a dagger hanging to your back and a guillotine looking to cut off your head, I'd like to know how exactly a business does so. If there's benefits to this legislation, there is obviously a lot lacking here if the entire US is up in arms about this.
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Refuses To Hear Wider Tech Industry Concerns About SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take a deep breath. Now let it out.
They've sent a copy of a letter to 3 people in Congress. Only ~4200 people have signed the CA letter.
Demand Progress has had over 8,000 people sign their petition IIRC. Now, if we're to say the same thing, Demand Progress has more letters sent out than CA. So it's up to you. You can use the fake number. But no matter how you slice it, more people are against SOPA than what CA is harping about.
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Refuses To Hear Wider Tech Industry Concerns About SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Refuses To Hear Wider Tech Industry Concerns About SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it's a tactic that worked in the UK. If you make people fight, you can vilify them. And you can say that the police are justified. They are already militarized enough. Especially looking at the Berkeley demonstrations.
On the post: When Even The Librarians Are Against SOPA...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which serves nothing but allowing gatekeepers where there need not be gatekeepers.
Perhaps, as an example, the system will only allow the video to be streamed to students actually registered in the class, and only for a given period, example.
Congratulations, you've just said that Khan Academy is obsolete by allowing people to learn without being in a college course.
That would limit the playback to what has been considered by some as fair use, which negating the chance of infringing uses.
The better answer is more exceptions allows more freedoms, which allows more innovations.
DMCA safe harbor created Youtube, because without it, Youtube would have died under the normal copyright laws.
Thereby showing how erroneous Youtube, Twitter, Soundcloud, and other user submitted sites would not be around because of copyright laws.
Intentions and enforcement rarely match, because judges have to interpret the laws as well as the DoJ and other authorities.
Wrong. The DoJ isn't there to interpret the laws, merely execute. And they're stretching laws to make up new ones in being the copyright cops.
On the post: Viacom Says That By Letting People View Videos On Phones, YouTube Loses DMCA Safe Harbors
What is Viacom's model?
If you can't break it, sue it.
If you can't sue it, destroy it.
I just find it odd how this is looking more and more like a witch hunt for piracy than someone actually interested in making content available for consumers.
On the post: Time Magazine Says SOPA Is 'A Cure Worse Than The Disease'; Would Encourage Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's in a name?
On the post: Not To Be Overlooked In SOPA: Massive Expansion Of Copyright Maximalist Diplomatic Corp
Re:
Those dang Communists!
On the post: Old Fashioned 'Pirates' Steal 6,000 Copies Of The New Call Of Duty Game
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pirates?
Let's try this again. Digital unauthorized downloading of files has always been a service issue. Not a legal one. While those in the movie and music industry continue to try to make it a legal issue, it has always been ineffective in trying to litigate piracy away, which has NEVER worked.
Cyberlockers such as Google Music or Rapidshare continue to fulfill niches that the MPAA and RIAA will not fulfill. While criminalizing linking is within their grasp, the cheaper outcome maintains that those within the industry build their own platforms of commerce instead of complaining to Congress.
The litigation route continues to work against those that use it, vilifying their approach and showing the ineffectiveness of illegal search and seizures, faulty evidence collection, and lawsuits based on circumstantial evidence.
But of course, making tapes was a crime too. Great way to enforce the law... Just think everyone is a criminal.
On the post: Old Fashioned 'Pirates' Steal 6,000 Copies Of The New Call Of Duty Game
Re:
On the post: Time Magazine Says SOPA Is 'A Cure Worse Than The Disease'; Would Encourage Censorship
Re: Re: What's in a name?
On the post: Time Magazine Says SOPA Is 'A Cure Worse Than The Disease'; Would Encourage Censorship
Re:
On the post: Time Magazine Says SOPA Is 'A Cure Worse Than The Disease'; Would Encourage Censorship
What's in a name?
How about the Washington Post? Washington is more a first name instead of an insult.
Oooh, Oooh, We should call him "Geeky Mike" because he's a self professed geek!
On the post: Old Fashioned 'Pirates' Steal 6,000 Copies Of The New Call Of Duty Game
Re: Re: Pirates?
On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'… Except He Doesn't
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Based on ONE tracker, I'm supposed to believe that this says most content is deemed illegal, and ignore the more nuanced view that shows how the industry is to blame for it all. Ready to try to change the subject again because you're going to lose this exchange.
For example, in the more than five years since the first short films arrived on Apple's iTunes Store, the company has yet to bring movie rentals and downloads to more than a handful of countries in Europe (Britain, Germany, France and Ireland), as well as Canada, Mexico and Japan. Netflix streaming only arrived in Canada in September and has yet to surface anywhere else. And Amazon's video-on-demand service hasn't even gone beyond the United States. yet.
But let's ask David Price how he feels about availability of legal content:
Well whaddaya know? The more legal channels, the less piracy. Did someone already research that?
Oh wait...
Link
Want some more, chief? It's fun making you look bad. :)
On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'… Except He Doesn't
Re: Re:
Further, it's a good thing that there's no way this is the fault of the industry itself.
Oh wait...
Link
Next >>