I don't consider taking someone else's property and giving it away for free to be real competition. Nothing's stopping anyone from creating their own content and distributing it any way they want.
unless laws are enacted that allow them to not compete despite the popularity of other methods.
The laws don't stop others from legitimately competing.
For example most of these streaming sites are a fantastic example of how cable tv should and can work. If my pay tv service was half as useful as ninjavideo was I wouldn't have needed ninjavideo.
Ninjavideo isn't competing in a legitimate way.
You are right that they can't stop innovation. Its just a shame they are gonna make some great innovators felons before they adapt
What's a shame is the notion that the only way to "compete" is through illegal means.
The point of the Act is to block sites dedicated to infringement, whether copyright or trademark. New technologies can still be developed, so long as they aren't developed on sites dedicated to infringement. Are you arguing that new technologies REQUIRE infringement to be developed? That's an interesting argument if so.
I don't know what "emulation of abandonware" means, so you'll have to walk me through that one.
Live streaming already exists. The PROTECT IP Act will not take away this technology or prevent it from progressing. Only sites dedicated to infringement will be affected.
FLV files? They will exist as always. I don't see how the PROTECT IP Act will take away flash video.
I asked about the buggy whip/recording industry analogy twice. I never got an answer that I thought was satisfactory. I get the analogy, I just don't think it works. Other than that, I can't recall any recent questions I've asked over several threads. Enough of this, though. Let's talk about the issue of what technologies the PROTECT IP Act blocks. That's the topic. I don't think it prevents any new technologies from arising since I don't think piracy is necessary for a new technology to do so. If I'm wrong, tell me why.
If someone can point me to a technology and make out a case that it will be blocked by the PROTECT IP Act, I would seriously like to see the argument. I am actually here to learn. It may seem like flaming, but it's really a genuine desire to suss out the issues.
And I'm sure there are some laws that turn out to be worse than expected, and likewise some that are better than expected. Seems like FUD to me. I just don't see how the average YouTube user would rise to the level of criminal under the Act.
It might block a technology that relies on piracy to gain traction. But does technology need piracy? Couldn't the same technology be developed, but just play by the rules?
I get that some things that are infringing can lead to new technologies. What I don't get is the innuendo that infringing things are necessary to create new technologies. Nor do I see how the PROTECT IP Act blocks new technologies.
It was a silly mistake, like I lived on 1234 S. Main St. and they were supposed to go to 1234 Main St. Fuckers had me in cuffs for two hours while they figured this out.
Yet, with PROTECT IP, the goal is to freeze the existing setup at a moment in time, and not allow any of these services to advance and find those additional non-infringing uses.
I just don't buy the argument. The PROTECT IP Act does not block any technologies. Innovation is allowed to take place.
The real difference is the arrest for linking to (contributory infringement, which should be handled in a civil court, not a criminal one), but not specifically hosting, copying or uploading the material in question.
But there is such thing as accomplice liability in criminal infringement. I checked on Westlaw and found about 25 recent cases of people being charged with this for internet-related activity. In fact, one of the charges against McCarthy was that he was an accomplice. It's not necessarily a civil thing.
And this new attempt at a changing the law will make practically everyone subject to that same type of arrest and conviction. Have Twitter? Have over 10 followers? Post link to Youtube video you don't have copyright to? Go directl y to jail at the whim of the copyright holder under this law. Prepare to visit grandma in jail, for forwarding that link to all of her friends, of that funny video if which she didn't own the copyrights.
Utter FUD and nonsense. Remember that it has to meet the requirements to be criminal, not the least of which is that it's "willful," which involves a two-pronged test. This will not affect regular users.
This is all about the "new beating stick" the lawyers will be sending out in their letters. Now along with "Settle for this low price and we won't take all your money. Because even if you are innocent, it will still cost you to defend yourself", will be included "and you might not even be sent to ass-raping prison by us". I certain folks not worried about losing some money in court, might be more worried about jail time for something they're accused of doing, even if they didn't do it.
I don't see how this addendum will change things in that regard. Private plaintiffs can already do that under existing law. More FUD.
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The laws don't stop others from legitimately competing.
For example most of these streaming sites are a fantastic example of how cable tv should and can work. If my pay tv service was half as useful as ninjavideo was I wouldn't have needed ninjavideo.
Ninjavideo isn't competing in a legitimate way.
You are right that they can't stop innovation. Its just a shame they are gonna make some great innovators felons before they adapt
What's a shame is the notion that the only way to "compete" is through illegal means.
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Live streaming already exists. The PROTECT IP Act will not take away this technology or prevent it from progressing. Only sites dedicated to infringement will be affected.
FLV files? They will exist as always. I don't see how the PROTECT IP Act will take away flash video.
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
Re: Re:
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Google A 'Rogue' Website?
I just don't buy the argument. The PROTECT IP Act does not block any technologies. Innovation is allowed to take place.
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But there is such thing as accomplice liability in criminal infringement. I checked on Westlaw and found about 25 recent cases of people being charged with this for internet-related activity. In fact, one of the charges against McCarthy was that he was an accomplice. It's not necessarily a civil thing.
And this new attempt at a changing the law will make practically everyone subject to that same type of arrest and conviction. Have Twitter? Have over 10 followers? Post link to Youtube video you don't have copyright to? Go directl y to jail at the whim of the copyright holder under this law. Prepare to visit grandma in jail, for forwarding that link to all of her friends, of that funny video if which she didn't own the copyrights.
Utter FUD and nonsense. Remember that it has to meet the requirements to be criminal, not the least of which is that it's "willful," which involves a two-pronged test. This will not affect regular users.
This is all about the "new beating stick" the lawyers will be sending out in their letters. Now along with "Settle for this low price and we won't take all your money. Because even if you are innocent, it will still cost you to defend yourself", will be included "and you might not even be sent to ass-raping prison by us". I certain folks not worried about losing some money in court, might be more worried about jail time for something they're accused of doing, even if they didn't do it.
I don't see how this addendum will change things in that regard. Private plaintiffs can already do that under existing law. More FUD.
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>