And those players together account for want percentage of global motion picture receipts? You have to be kidding me right? I acknowledge that your examples are laughable.
You are not suggesting that pirate bay might have some legitimate free speech defense? Even they wouldn't claim that.
If a neighborhood pawn shop persisted in selling stolen merchandise what percentage of its goods would have to be stolen before the courts shut it down? I don't know the exact number but I doubt it would be a very high percentage. Just because it happens online doesn't mean a different standard should exist.
A motion picture makes about 75% of its total earnings from downstream revenues (other than N. AMerican box office) The problem isn't people sneking into theaters its people making (and sometime selling) perfect digital replicas. That is what erodes downstream revenue. It's those revenues that support workers health and retirement plans.
the bill is about sites DEDICATED to infringing activity- not containing mostly protected speech. Clearly even you can see the subtle difference.
And I don't know why I equate getting the intellectual property of another that is offered for sale without paying for it with stealing. Parse words all you like and call it "infringing" if it helps you sleep better at night.
The workers behind the camera receive residuals and their health insurance and retirement are derived from downstream revenues. The very revenues eroded by piracy. But fundamentally I reject a judgment of wealth or poverty as justification for stealing. Sorry.
So you are suggesting that I don't have the right to the financial rewards of my innovation and creativity. And actually, I'd like to see the private right of action expanded to invest more of the responsibility for copyright enforcement vested in the rights holder.
FYI, the US is a capitalist society, not socialist or communist so that whole "fundamental fallacy like the right to profit" thing probably won't get a lot of traction. Though it might explain why other countries have such pathetic film and music industries.
It's like you're slow or something. PROTECT IP allows the government to order US credit card companies and US ad networks to desist enabling and monetizing foreign infringers otherwise the current judicial system would take care of business. It allows the government to order search engines not to resolve infringing we addresses. All this happens after an order from a judge. It allows private rights holders to do the same, with the exception of the search engines.
So what if it's legal in their own country. Marijuana is legal in Amsterdam but it doesn't mean an Amsterdam company can legally offer it for sale in the US. Child porn may be legal in some countries. Try selling that here.
If the bill violates the Constitution then the Supreme Court and intermediate courts will rule on it. Just because a piracy apologist says it's unconstitutional doesn't mean it is.
Your last analogy is pure desperation. We are not talking about clinging to b&w silent films and resisting Technicolor "talkies". Who the hell do you think pioneered those innovations? Inherent to the furtherance of creative product is the ability to be compensated for that creativity. It's not to hard if you think about from a different perspective than that of someone who believes he's entitled to get something of value for nothing.
Due Process: Their is a notion that a website that offers subscriptions and/or is supported by ads that offers the copyrighted works of others is entitled to a hearing before an action is taken. That's bullshit. As a matter of law, a seizure is analogous to an arrest. You don't get a hearing before you are arrested. Rule 65 protections are in effect so there are no due process concerns by first amend scholars such as the one who testified before the House Judiciary IP Subcommittee.
Free Speech: Stopping someone from monetizing content owned by others is hardly a breech of free speech. Even if a site had some non-infringing content, if the primary purpose is to disseminate copyrighted content it's not entitled to cry free speech. If 10% of the goods in a pawn shop were stolen and that shop persisted in selling stolen property, it would be shut down... entirely. Why should it differ online?
Which way do you want it. You cry about the government being a private police force(like Operation In Our Sites) and then snivel about about private right of action where rights holders must defend their own copyright.
I infer from your comments that you are not an American. That's fine, hate away. But instead why don't you simply pirate the films produced in your own country and ignore those of the hated Americans? Oh yeah, that's right. You don't have a film industry, unless you live in Bollywood.
"1st page - It details about takedowns after the fact. That's not due process, that's censorship. Problem is, the copyright holder is allowed a special privilege with the domain holder not being aware of the action. That's not due process either, that's one sided litigation."
Seizures from a legal standpoint are like an arrest of an individual. The government must convince a judge that the site is dedicated to infringing activity. Not has some infringing content... dedicated. No judge is going to allow an action against youtube.com because some halfwit uploaded a tv show.
Page 2 - ACTA style seizure with rights holders holding all the cards. This is aimed at pharmaceuticals, but still relevant for other areas of industry. If you're at the border, and the police decide to look at your ipod, odds are, they can talk to the Big Four to see if you have infringing files. Since border police are already known to hassle people and electronics, and your rights are not enforced at the border, there's going to be all sorts of problems that this entails.
The notion that TSA or ICE or anyone else busy crapping themselves over potential Al Queda retaliation is going to check my iPod for a bootleg copy of "The Kings Speech" is simply laughable and a measure of how desperate you piracy apologists are to continue free access to the creative content of others.
Page 7 - Attempt is the big word. You could say "yes, I tried this" and get away with the in rem. This doesn't fix the due process, of allowing a domain hearing or letting someone know of what the heck is going on BEFORE the government gets involved.
PROTECT IP Act is for foreign websites. Do you know how impossible it is to serve an anonymous criminal actor in a foreign company? And do you know how many of the infringers who were taken down by ICE availed themselves to the US judicial process. I'll spare you the Wikipedia search: Zero. The guys who steal the content of others and monetize it know how the game is played. They don't cry about due process or free speech. The cut their losses and move on to the next criminal enterprise.
Page 8 - Pretty much this doesn't say anything about definitions of infringing sites. This tells us that they'll justify taking down a website for public health reasons without any justification otherwise. I would rather they go through the process of a judicial hearing than be given speedy access to takedowns.
So you advocate allowing the public to continue to be duped into thinking that they are buying the legitimate medicine when they're not for 2-3 years while it winds through the judicial process? What if that was Grandma's cancer medication? I assume you really want copyright cases to drag out like that too so billions of unauthorized copies can be made for free as well?
Summary - Basically the ACTA hooked up with the COICA, had a baby, and out popped this infringement on every American who uses the internet today.
Your conclusion is just as lame as your critique. Just once I'd like to hear one of you piracy apologists offer an alternative solution that protects the right to profit from creativity and balances all other competing interests. But instead I get drivel like this.
It's about more than middle men. It's also about the hundreds of thousands of middle class workers working behind the camera on motion pictures and television production. These people don't have 9-5 jobs, they move from project to project. Moreover, their health and retirement benefits are partly funded by the proceeds from downstream revenues. The very revenue stream eroded by piracy.
I don't buy any of the spurious arguments about due process and censorship. PROTECT IP Act targets those sites that take the copyrighted content of others and monetizes it for their own financial benefit. It's not free speech that the piracy apologists want, it's f-r-e-e speech- as it they don't want to pay.
Scumbag profiteers like tvshack.com get busted and reappear as tvshack.bz for the sole purpose of evading the US judicial system so they can continue to personally profit from the creative output wrongfully looted from others.
But you can expect the professional apologist Astroturf groups like EFF, Public Knowledge, CDT etc to come out in full force to defend FOREIGN criminals with all kinds of bogus constitutional and due process arguments. I wish just once the professional apologists would consider what it takes to make a living as creator, but they don't really give a shit either because it's all about entitlement to free content no matter what the cot to creative professionals.
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporate Welfare
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a neighborhood pawn shop persisted in selling stolen merchandise what percentage of its goods would have to be stolen before the courts shut it down? I don't know the exact number but I doubt it would be a very high percentage. Just because it happens online doesn't mean a different standard should exist.
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the bill is about sites DEDICATED to infringing activity- not containing mostly protected speech. Clearly even you can see the subtle difference.
And I don't know why I equate getting the intellectual property of another that is offered for sale without paying for it with stealing. Parse words all you like and call it "infringing" if it helps you sleep better at night.
The workers behind the camera receive residuals and their health insurance and retirement are derived from downstream revenues. The very revenues eroded by piracy. But fundamentally I reject a judgment of wealth or poverty as justification for stealing. Sorry.
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Corporate Welfare
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FYI, the US is a capitalist society, not socialist or communist so that whole "fundamental fallacy like the right to profit" thing probably won't get a lot of traction. Though it might explain why other countries have such pathetic film and music industries.
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense
So what if it's legal in their own country. Marijuana is legal in Amsterdam but it doesn't mean an Amsterdam company can legally offer it for sale in the US. Child porn may be legal in some countries. Try selling that here.
If the bill violates the Constitution then the Supreme Court and intermediate courts will rule on it. Just because a piracy apologist says it's unconstitutional doesn't mean it is.
Your last analogy is pure desperation. We are not talking about clinging to b&w silent films and resisting Technicolor "talkies". Who the hell do you think pioneered those innovations? Inherent to the furtherance of creative product is the ability to be compensated for that creativity. It's not to hard if you think about from a different perspective than that of someone who believes he's entitled to get something of value for nothing.
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Free Speech: Stopping someone from monetizing content owned by others is hardly a breech of free speech. Even if a site had some non-infringing content, if the primary purpose is to disseminate copyrighted content it's not entitled to cry free speech. If 10% of the goods in a pawn shop were stolen and that shop persisted in selling stolen property, it would be shut down... entirely. Why should it differ online?
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Corporate Welfare
I infer from your comments that you are not an American. That's fine, hate away. But instead why don't you simply pirate the films produced in your own country and ignore those of the hated Americans? Oh yeah, that's right. You don't have a film industry, unless you live in Bollywood.
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re:
You said:
"1st page - It details about takedowns after the fact. That's not due process, that's censorship. Problem is, the copyright holder is allowed a special privilege with the domain holder not being aware of the action. That's not due process either, that's one sided litigation."
Seizures from a legal standpoint are like an arrest of an individual. The government must convince a judge that the site is dedicated to infringing activity. Not has some infringing content... dedicated. No judge is going to allow an action against youtube.com because some halfwit uploaded a tv show.
Page 2 - ACTA style seizure with rights holders holding all the cards. This is aimed at pharmaceuticals, but still relevant for other areas of industry. If you're at the border, and the police decide to look at your ipod, odds are, they can talk to the Big Four to see if you have infringing files. Since border police are already known to hassle people and electronics, and your rights are not enforced at the border, there's going to be all sorts of problems that this entails.
The notion that TSA or ICE or anyone else busy crapping themselves over potential Al Queda retaliation is going to check my iPod for a bootleg copy of "The Kings Speech" is simply laughable and a measure of how desperate you piracy apologists are to continue free access to the creative content of others.
Page 7 - Attempt is the big word. You could say "yes, I tried this" and get away with the in rem. This doesn't fix the due process, of allowing a domain hearing or letting someone know of what the heck is going on BEFORE the government gets involved.
PROTECT IP Act is for foreign websites. Do you know how impossible it is to serve an anonymous criminal actor in a foreign company? And do you know how many of the infringers who were taken down by ICE availed themselves to the US judicial process. I'll spare you the Wikipedia search: Zero. The guys who steal the content of others and monetize it know how the game is played. They don't cry about due process or free speech. The cut their losses and move on to the next criminal enterprise.
Page 8 - Pretty much this doesn't say anything about definitions of infringing sites. This tells us that they'll justify taking down a website for public health reasons without any justification otherwise. I would rather they go through the process of a judicial hearing than be given speedy access to takedowns.
So you advocate allowing the public to continue to be duped into thinking that they are buying the legitimate medicine when they're not for 2-3 years while it winds through the judicial process? What if that was Grandma's cancer medication? I assume you really want copyright cases to drag out like that too so billions of unauthorized copies can be made for free as well?
Summary - Basically the ACTA hooked up with the COICA, had a baby, and out popped this infringement on every American who uses the internet today.
Your conclusion is just as lame as your critique. Just once I'd like to hear one of you piracy apologists offer an alternative solution that protects the right to profit from creativity and balances all other competing interests. But instead I get drivel like this.
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re:
It's about more than middle men. It's also about the hundreds of thousands of middle class workers working behind the camera on motion pictures and television production. These people don't have 9-5 jobs, they move from project to project. Moreover, their health and retirement benefits are partly funded by the proceeds from downstream revenues. The very revenue stream eroded by piracy.
I don't buy any of the spurious arguments about due process and censorship. PROTECT IP Act targets those sites that take the copyrighted content of others and monetizes it for their own financial benefit. It's not free speech that the piracy apologists want, it's f-r-e-e speech- as it they don't want to pay.
Scumbag profiteers like tvshack.com get busted and reappear as tvshack.bz for the sole purpose of evading the US judicial system so they can continue to personally profit from the creative output wrongfully looted from others.
But you can expect the professional apologist Astroturf groups like EFF, Public Knowledge, CDT etc to come out in full force to defend FOREIGN criminals with all kinds of bogus constitutional and due process arguments. I wish just once the professional apologists would consider what it takes to make a living as creator, but they don't really give a shit either because it's all about entitlement to free content no matter what the cot to creative professionals.
Next >>