So, if a law exists, it is automatically good and should be followed? Even after the evidence of RAMPANT corruption that controls our political process?
You're saying that people should follow the law. The law that media distribution companies have paid for, so they could maintain their control over the market. Do you not see the problem with that train of thought?
Re: What the hell is your point, here? To make Paypal look good?
The thing is, it shouldn't have been a problem in the first place, and PayPal is known for pulling stunts like this. They deserve every bit of bad publicity they get. And more.
Re: "Due process" in civil matters can mean a letter was mailed.
The problem is the immediate seizure. As I said above... if I complain that I think your car is mine, should the police take it from you right then and there, with no arguments allowed?
The DMCA certainly includes criminal components, and PIPA and SOPA both enshrine seizure of assets without any judicial oversight, which is generally the kind of thing you do to criminals. Not a hallmark of civil action.
Really... do you have any idea what you're talking about?
It's illegal to sell a device to do the backup for you, but it's legal to do the backup?
The problem is the encryption that they insist on putting on the media. Between the encryption and these new anti-circumvention laws, the industry has created a legal gate completely around personal backups without explicitly outlawing them. Talk about loopholes...
That's copyright law. That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing the DMCA, PIPA and SOPA, which actually outlaw that. Just because it's legal under Copyright to do it doesn't mean it's legal to actually do it.
This blog and most commenters aren't against corporations. They're against corporate abuses of the legal system, regulatory capture, and other unfair, unjust and unscrupulous practices.
It's really sad yet enlightening to learn that you can't tell the difference between the two.
Section 103 (17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)) of the DMCA states:
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
The Act defines what it means in Section 1201(a)(3):
(3) As used in this subsection—
(A) to 「circumvent a technological measure」 means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
(B) a technological measure 「effectively controls access to a work」 if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
There are some exceptions in section 1201, but they are limited to interoperability and educational or law enforcement use, and since ripping and transcoding movies to a hard drive isn't for interoperability but a derivative use, it's still illegal under the DMCA.
See the problem here is that you're just being obtuse. You're asking for more rights above and beyond copyright. Copyright holders have very, VERY strong rights under the current system. To say so otherwise is a blatant lie.
The DMCA, PIPA, SOPA, those are all WAY above and beyond copyright, and they're effectively shutting off huge swaths of legitimate technology because an industry is seeing their stranglehold of being broken. If I LICENSE a movie (as I've been told I do), I want the ability to use my licensed content for private consumption as I see fit. The problem is that shit like the DMCA, PIPA and SOPA take away that right. It's currently illegal for me to take my movies and copy them to my hard drive to watch, thereby keeping the discs out of my kid's hands and making the media much easier to access. Tell me... how is that promoting the progress of sciences or useful arts? If anything, it's just holding them back.
Go ahead and sue someone who misrepresents themselves as the author of your work. Or someone who makes copies of your work and sells them. Or even gives them away for free. None of that takes SOPA, PIPA or the DMCA. If that's too hard for you to do, well... that's your problem.
I take it you haven't actually been in many fights. Yes, you should generally walk away, but if you walk away from someone intent on beating you all you'll get is a punch to the back instead of the front.
Saying Mike is a "little man" is certainly name-calling. I'm not sure there's any other way to take that, unless Mike happens to be abnormally short. And even if he were, it's not germane to the discussion.
As for your second assertion, that the current landscape is a "mockery" of copyright law, that's BLATANTLY false. Bordering on maliciously so, so that you could add on that rider about a mockery of all of society's laws to make it seem like more than it is. It almost sounds like you're a lobbyist, and even worse, you believe your own bullshit.
Copyright law has been religiously extended since 1976, with nary a push back from Congress... how can you, with a straight face, claim that in it's current form it still "promote[s] the progress of the sciences and useful arts"? Current copyright law is it's own mockery. It needs no external influences to add to that.
You know, I've found when people stoop to name-calling it's because they don't have anything else.
I'm sure PIPA punishes those engaging in trafficking illegal goods. That's not the question. The question is whether it unduly punishes those engaging in trafficking LEGAL goods and content, and it certainly will.
When did America forget that "innocent until proven guilty" used to be a cornerstone of our justice system, a differentiation from the rest of the world?
Perhaps you should go reread Orwell's 1984. I think you missed large parts of it. Or read it as a how-to.
Censorship is when the government keeps people from having the right to speak freely. This bill's stated purpose is not censorship, but it's side-effects most certainly are. It allows mass shutdowns of legal content at the private insinuation that there might be protected content (which I contend shouldn't be protected to the degree it is, but that's a separate discussion). If you can't see that, there's no amount of anyone saying anything that will change your mind because you've obviously closed it to facts.
The solution is not more legislation. The solution is to get rid of the DMCA and the way that copyright has become a crutch for many industries that keep trying to hold progress back.
Remember, copyright is not a natural right. If you show a kid a drawing, they don't automatically think it's wrong to copy it. Copyright wasn't really even conceived of until about 300 years ago, and EVEN THEN it was to benefit everyone by giving creators LIMITED rights. Not automatic and in perpetuity as we effectively have now. Copyright is a tax on society, one that we're not getting any returns for. It seemingly only exists to centralize money into the hands of management organizations, because there are a lot of people that still create things without copyright protection.
“The DoJ is in no way interested in bringing cases against people who lie about their age on dating sites, or anything of the sort. We don’t have the time or resources to do that,”
On the post: Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period
Re: Re: Small problem
You're saying that people should follow the law. The law that media distribution companies have paid for, so they could maintain their control over the market. Do you not see the problem with that train of thought?
On the post: PayPal Acts As Grinch Over Money Raised For Charity Using 'Wrong Button'; Finally Bows To Internet Pressure
Re: What the hell is your point, here? To make Paypal look good?
On the post: Why Adversarial Hearings Are Important: Rulings Change When The Other Side Is Heard
Re: "Due process" in civil matters can mean a letter was mailed.
On the post: Why Adversarial Hearings Are Important: Rulings Change When The Other Side Is Heard
Re: Re: Re: Justice Delayed = Justice Denied
Seriously... taking people's property should be the LAST thing that happens, not the first.
On the post: Red Cross Wants Real Life Laws Enforced Within Virtual Worlds
Re:
On the post: A Step By Step Debunking Of US Chamber Of Commerce's Dishonest Stats About 'Rogue Sites'
Re: Re: And this ladies and gents is why
On the post: Ubisoft Director Backtracks On Piracy Complaints After Public Lashing
Re: Re:
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really... do you have any idea what you're talking about?
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is the encryption that they insist on putting on the media. Between the encryption and these new anti-circumvention laws, the industry has created a legal gate completely around personal backups without explicitly outlawing them. Talk about loopholes...
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Grow a clue.
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re:
It's really sad yet enlightening to learn that you can't tell the difference between the two.
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re: : Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#United_States
There are some exceptions in section 1201, but they are limited to interoperability and educational or law enforcement use, and since ripping and transcoding movies to a hard drive isn't for interoperability but a derivative use, it's still illegal under the DMCA.
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The DMCA, PIPA, SOPA, those are all WAY above and beyond copyright, and they're effectively shutting off huge swaths of legitimate technology because an industry is seeing their stranglehold of being broken. If I LICENSE a movie (as I've been told I do), I want the ability to use my licensed content for private consumption as I see fit. The problem is that shit like the DMCA, PIPA and SOPA take away that right. It's currently illegal for me to take my movies and copy them to my hard drive to watch, thereby keeping the discs out of my kid's hands and making the media much easier to access. Tell me... how is that promoting the progress of sciences or useful arts? If anything, it's just holding them back.
Go ahead and sue someone who misrepresents themselves as the author of your work. Or someone who makes copies of your work and sells them. Or even gives them away for free. None of that takes SOPA, PIPA or the DMCA. If that's too hard for you to do, well... that's your problem.
On the post: Police Caught Tasing Teen Without Warning
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for your second assertion, that the current landscape is a "mockery" of copyright law, that's BLATANTLY false. Bordering on maliciously so, so that you could add on that rider about a mockery of all of society's laws to make it seem like more than it is. It almost sounds like you're a lobbyist, and even worse, you believe your own bullshit.
Copyright law has been religiously extended since 1976, with nary a push back from Congress... how can you, with a straight face, claim that in it's current form it still "promote[s] the progress of the sciences and useful arts"? Current copyright law is it's own mockery. It needs no external influences to add to that.
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re:
I'm sure PIPA punishes those engaging in trafficking illegal goods. That's not the question. The question is whether it unduly punishes those engaging in trafficking LEGAL goods and content, and it certainly will.
When did America forget that "innocent until proven guilty" used to be a cornerstone of our justice system, a differentiation from the rest of the world?
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re:
Censorship is when the government keeps people from having the right to speak freely. This bill's stated purpose is not censorship, but it's side-effects most certainly are. It allows mass shutdowns of legal content at the private insinuation that there might be protected content (which I contend shouldn't be protected to the degree it is, but that's a separate discussion). If you can't see that, there's no amount of anyone saying anything that will change your mind because you've obviously closed it to facts.
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Re:
Remember, copyright is not a natural right. If you show a kid a drawing, they don't automatically think it's wrong to copy it. Copyright wasn't really even conceived of until about 300 years ago, and EVEN THEN it was to benefit everyone by giving creators LIMITED rights. Not automatic and in perpetuity as we effectively have now. Copyright is a tax on society, one that we're not getting any returns for. It seemingly only exists to centralize money into the hands of management organizations, because there are a lot of people that still create things without copyright protection.
On the post: DOJ Two Step: It Should Be A Criminal Offense To Lie About Your Age On Facebook... But We Probably Won't Go After You For It
Not now
Yet.
Next >>