I gotta say that there is more nuance to censorship than the comic implies: Censorship is more than mere motive, it also has to do with who has the power, which is why me telling someone to shut it because I don't like their opinion is different than when a city council does it.
And as an earlier story today portrays nicely, copyright has certainly been used as a means to try to quiet legitimate speech on a private, civil level.
Then again, these are editorial cartoons. I should really just relax.
Reading the bill they also have a condition that the vicitm has to have a "reasonable expectation" of viewing it. The only way you could argue that the vicitm has a reasonable expectation of view the materials is by sending it directly to the target. If somebody sends phone calls, letters, emails, Facebook posts to someone with the intent and result of genuine distress, isn't that just good old-fashioned harrassment, or if threatening direct violence, assault?
Was this bill written by some guy who's mom showed his prom date naked baby pictures?
It would seem the real question is whether or not Anti-SLAPP statutes apply to this case. Saying that including a 26 second clip of a 1 hour 44 minute documentary as a part of a critique doesn't count as Fair Use is overbearing.
I don't care if the recent stereo versions of the Beatles albums requried heroic efforts. I bought some of them around a year ago, and they just didn't sound right.
I guess I'm not really discussing the matter at hand, but this gave me a convenient opening to complain about it.
I'm not sure I completely agree. IMO, I get that piracy is illegal, but my problem is that the proposed solutions to it have become increasingly oppressive, e.g. making digital infringment worthy of jail time.
Although I think that times and technology have changed enough to make IP laws useless, I could live with them if they seemed reasonable, and I'm willing to say that the current laws aren't.
You're assuming we will always be limited to this planet. That might not be the case.
If we hope to live 1000 year lifespans it will be a requirement.
I regrettably forgot where I read it, but I'm basing my current bearishness on the super extended lifespan on an article that discussed the technology necessary for spacefaring and relating it to our current expenditure and supply of energy resources as a game of beat-the-clock. Either we develop the means and technology to now, or we'll never be able to. Pretty interesting read actually.
I agree with you, but piracy is only a symptom of the problem, not the cause. Tightening the laws further to make creative expressions progressively difficult for people who try to interact with copyrighted products is not the answer.
So, it appears that he thinks copyright should last forever... and he's against changing the "contract" on copyright related terms... unless the change screws over the public and completely tramples the existing agreement they had.
Viewing copyright as a contract was the moment my understanding and opinion on copyrights shifted.
Copyrights were written into the Constitution as a contract, we give you a limited monopoly on something that cannot be naturally protected (expressions), as an incentive to create new expressions that will benefit everyone. However, the line itself mentions that it should be limited. Copyright takes the natural exhange of expression and ideas and tries to do something unnatural with it, treat it like a finite commodity, with the understanding that it will eventually be set free again.
Problem is that contract is out of whack. The contract is being increased in scope and duration without any consideration of how that will affect common interactions. The consequences of which is carried out in courtrooms with what seems to be increasing frequency.
If we should not quash even the most odious of expressions from some pretty loathsome human beings, why stoop to preventing expressions in a public space that are meant to be respectful, even if they are disruptive in someone's opinion? We're not talking "fire in a crowded theater" type stuff, we're talking about dancing.
If you really think that little of our right to express one's self in public that quiet dancing counts as worthy of sensorship, I can only feel sorry for you.
Whether or not anyone goes to jail for this is beside the point that they want to give judges the permission to do exactly that, because of the consequences that penalty can have on you and I.
Considering that the harm (or even the existence of harm) for infringement is hard to pin down, even from case to case. Making it an offense worthy of incarceration on so low a standard (10 "performances" over 6 months) is pretty ridiculous, even unnecessary. And as been mentioned so many times here that it deserves its own shorthand, the even greater problem is that it could create a chilling effect.
Let's use the ever handy YouTube as an example:
Who would want to post anything there that may refer to any copyrighted media, if due to some misunderstand of the law, or an interpretation of fair use that doesn't jive with the judge can lead to criminal prosecution that could result in jail time? Instead of worrying about that, some would rather just keep their "mouths" shut. What originally is thought to be harmonizing the laws, is now a statutory hurdle against engaging with our own culture.
And on top of that ts, Mickey's Law requires all IP infringers to report themselves to local law enforcement when moving to a new community, online or physical.
Ever have the fear that some dope out there came up with the same idea, and thinks it's good thing?
Actually it's the fluorodated water. It's a little known fact that it turns 0.001% of the population into civil libertarians with free market tendencies and nice teeth.
You know what makes even more sense? Increasing the world's largest prison population with an influx of the least violent criminals* in the world for up to 5 years at a time.
*That is until they have no choice but to join prison gangs and learn how to stab someone to death with a toothbrush.
On the post: NJ Supreme Court Can't Comprehend That Everyone Can Be A Journalist
We really need to deflate the heads of some of these local "TV Personalities" in my area.
On the post: Censorship vs. Copyright
And as an earlier story today portrays nicely, copyright has certainly been used as a means to try to quiet legitimate speech on a private, civil level.
Then again, these are editorial cartoons. I should really just relax.
On the post: Post A Picture That 'Causes Emotional Distress' And You Could Face Jailtime In Tennessee
Sheer Stupidity
Reading the bill they also have a condition that the vicitm has to have a "reasonable expectation" of viewing it. The only way you could argue that the vicitm has a reasonable expectation of view the materials is by sending it directly to the target. If somebody sends phone calls, letters, emails, Facebook posts to someone with the intent and result of genuine distress, isn't that just good old-fashioned harrassment, or if threatening direct violence, assault?
Was this bill written by some guy who's mom showed his prom date naked baby pictures?
On the post: Oscar-Nominated Filmmaker Misuses DMCA To Take Down Video Of Reporter Asking Him Tough Questions
Re:
On the post: Would It Really Be So Bad If The Beatles Were In The Public Domain?
I guess I'm not really discussing the matter at hand, but this gave me a convenient opening to complain about it.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Lawyer: The Public Domain Goes Against Free Market Capitalism
Re: Re: Re: Copyright as a contract
Although I think that times and technology have changed enough to make IP laws useless, I could live with them if they seemed reasonable, and I'm willing to say that the current laws aren't.
On the post: Would People Stop Using Mobile Phones If More Evidence Shows Them To Be Carcinogenic?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If we hope to live 1000 year lifespans it will be a requirement.
I regrettably forgot where I read it, but I'm basing my current bearishness on the super extended lifespan on an article that discussed the technology necessary for spacefaring and relating it to our current expenditure and supply of energy resources as a game of beat-the-clock. Either we develop the means and technology to now, or we'll never be able to. Pretty interesting read actually.
On the post: Copyright Reform
On the post: Entertainment Industry Lawyer: The Public Domain Goes Against Free Market Capitalism
Re: Re: Copyright as a contract
As you said, two wrongs don't make a right.
On the post: Would People Stop Using Mobile Phones If More Evidence Shows Them To Be Carcinogenic?
Re: Re:
Wars over water and food, high population densities in cities creating the possibilty of highly contagious superbugs.
Okay, so it's a little pessimistic.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Lawyer: The Public Domain Goes Against Free Market Capitalism
Copyright as a contract
Viewing copyright as a contract was the moment my understanding and opinion on copyrights shifted.
Copyrights were written into the Constitution as a contract, we give you a limited monopoly on something that cannot be naturally protected (expressions), as an incentive to create new expressions that will benefit everyone. However, the line itself mentions that it should be limited. Copyright takes the natural exhange of expression and ideas and tries to do something unnatural with it, treat it like a finite commodity, with the understanding that it will eventually be set free again.
Problem is that contract is out of whack. The contract is being increased in scope and duration without any consideration of how that will affect common interactions. The consequences of which is carried out in courtrooms with what seems to be increasing frequency.
On the post: Would People Stop Using Mobile Phones If More Evidence Shows Them To Be Carcinogenic?
Re: No
*I mean it, cancer does not sound like any kind of way to be sick, and my sympathies go out to anyone who's ever had it.
On the post: Would People Stop Using Mobile Phones If More Evidence Shows Them To Be Carcinogenic?
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re: Re:
Feel free to be bothered, but guess what?
It's constitutionally protected: http://on.msnbc.com/iDiJTQ
If we should not quash even the most odious of expressions from some pretty loathsome human beings, why stoop to preventing expressions in a public space that are meant to be respectful, even if they are disruptive in someone's opinion? We're not talking "fire in a crowded theater" type stuff, we're talking about dancing.
If you really think that little of our right to express one's self in public that quiet dancing counts as worthy of sensorship, I can only feel sorry for you.
On the post: Dylan: What's Yours Is Mine, And What's Mine Is Mine, Too
Re: Re: Re:
Somewhere, YoYo Ma is crying.
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re:
Considering that the harm (or even the existence of harm) for infringement is hard to pin down, even from case to case. Making it an offense worthy of incarceration on so low a standard (10 "performances" over 6 months) is pretty ridiculous, even unnecessary. And as been mentioned so many times here that it deserves its own shorthand, the even greater problem is that it could create a chilling effect.
Let's use the ever handy YouTube as an example:
Who would want to post anything there that may refer to any copyrighted media, if due to some misunderstand of the law, or an interpretation of fair use that doesn't jive with the judge can lead to criminal prosecution that could result in jail time? Instead of worrying about that, some would rather just keep their "mouths" shut. What originally is thought to be harmonizing the laws, is now a statutory hurdle against engaging with our own culture.
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Yeah, it makes TONS of sense
Ever have the fear that some dope out there came up with the same idea, and thinks it's good thing?
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re:
Actually it's the fluorodated water. It's a little known fact that it turns 0.001% of the population into civil libertarians with free market tendencies and nice teeth.
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Yeah, it makes TONS of sense
*That is until they have no choice but to join prison gangs and learn how to stab someone to death with a toothbrush.
Next >>