Author Topic: Screw the OP, Lets just start arguing about copyright law  (Read 22079 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pokepal148

  • Inquire within for reasonable rates.
  • *
  • Score: -9967
    • View Profile
Screw the OP, Lets just start arguing about copyright law
« on: August 16, 2013, 12:56:04 AM »
and here I was winding down after a long day and then stuff like this happens

rt.com/usa/sopa-commerce-streaming-illegal-183/

remind me again why i shouldn't move to Canada.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 09:39:58 PM by pokepal148 »

Offline BranDonk Kong

  • Eat your f'ing cat!
  • Score: 10131
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2013, 08:28:03 AM »
That's from 9 days ago, so you might want to do a better job keeping up with the news.
I think it says on the box, 'No Hispanics' " - Jeff Green of EA

Offline Plugabugz

  • *continues waiting*
  • Score: 10
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2013, 08:41:33 AM »
That's from 9 days ago, so you might want to do a better job keeping up with the news.

The internet has a fairly lengthy delay, didn't you know?

Offline TJ Spyke

  • Ass
  • Score: -1350
    • View Profile
    • Spyke Shop
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2013, 11:39:01 AM »
Also, all the proposal would do is increase the penalty for something ALREADY illegal. Streaming copyrighted content without permission is already illegal, this proposal would just increase the punishment. So why the outrage? Or are you trying to create controversy where there is none (something a certain political party loves to do).
Help out a poor college student, buy video games and Blu-ray Discs at: http://astore.amazon.com/spyke-20

Offline Stogi

  • The Stratos You Should All Try To Be Like
  • Score: 18
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2013, 11:55:34 AM »
Dude....I constantly stream copyrighted material. I'm watching Adventure Time right now as we speak.
black fairy tales are better at sports



Offline pokepal148

  • Inquire within for reasonable rates.
  • *
  • Score: -9967
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2013, 12:21:05 PM »
Also, all the proposal would do is increase the penalty for something ALREADY illegal. Streaming copyrighted content without permission is already illegal, this proposal would just increase the punishment. So why the outrage? Or are you trying to create controversy where there is none (something a certain political party loves to do).
Tj, where do things like fan remixes and lets plays fall? because there is no set boundary at all to speak of. and you may think of lp'ers as "dirty smelly money-grubbing moochers" but that is irrelevant. there is no set boundary between transformative work and copyrighted material. if such a boundary existed and was set in stone then i would have no problem with this.

but there isn't. a harmless little fan trailer that could practically be considered free advertising(and im gonna be honest the bbc should have sent this person a job application and not a bunch of cease and desist letters) is just as vulnerable and has the same consequences as uploading the 3rd season of american dad. so is curtdogg and his streaming.


---on an interesting note lets players could pull on nintendos lack of any action to shut them down during their little tango a few months ago as 'permission to exist'---
« Last Edit: August 16, 2013, 12:33:43 PM by pokepal148 »

Offline TJ Spyke

  • Ass
  • Score: -1350
    • View Profile
    • Spyke Shop
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2013, 12:41:11 PM »
AGAIN, the ONLY thing this proposal does is increase the penalty of things ALREADY illegal. It does not change the legality of things. Stuff like fan remixes would keep their same legal/illegal status with or without this proposal. You are getting upset for nothing.

This is not about the legality of fan remixes and Let's Play videos. This is apparently you getting mad that they are increasing the penalties for something already illegal (or maybe you did not understand the article and somehow thought that streaming copyright material without permissions was somehow legal before and thought this would make it illegal, not realizing it was already illegal). I want to know if you are upset at them only increasing penalties for something already illegal, or if you just read the article and didn't realize those they are not changing the legal status of ANYTHING?
Help out a poor college student, buy video games and Blu-ray Discs at: http://astore.amazon.com/spyke-20

Offline pokepal148

  • Inquire within for reasonable rates.
  • *
  • Score: -9967
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2013, 01:33:49 PM »
Quote
This is not about the legality of fan remixes and Let's Play videos....
Tj let me explain something to you. when i read an article i think to myself "who could be negatively affected by this?" i don't just read an article i contemplate its possible unintended effects on people instead of blindly believing whatever it says on the tin. and the people making that kind of content are pretty high on the list, you know why..?

Quote
Stuff like fan remixes would keep their same legal/illegal status with or without this proposal....
Well thats just fine and dandy but theres just one tiny little detail...
THERE IS NO OFFICIAL LEGAL/ILLEGAL STATUS ON THOSE THINGS. these things are a massive grey area. arguments can be made for or against their legality but the fact is there is no clear answer. some Lawyers may take advantage of this situation and bend the rules a little bit in order to get a quick buck. and that little kid doing a lady gaga remix gets this for his troubles,

[url]http://www.smithkramerlaw.com/Article_Consequences-of-a-Federal-Felony-Conviction.asp[url]

a felony conviction will follow that person for the rest of their life. because of this until there is a set legal/illegal status on those things i am completely opposed to this legislation.

im against somebody streaming the entire 3rd season of american dad but there needs to be a boundary for this law (and i do think a felony is a bit overkill). to summerize what i just said

or if you just read the article and didn't realize those they are not changing the legal status of ANYTHING?
THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT. Things like fan remixes or trailers, along with lets plays have no official legal status. if some lawyer wants a quick buck nothing can stop them from shutting these things down even though they aren't technically illegal. we are looking at a massive grey area where really anything goes and thats what troubles me. a felony is a big deal and will haunt somebody for the rest of their life.

if you are that kid, about 13 years old lets say, and you were convicted of a felony it will go against you in getting a job and going to college. that bright future ahead of you is fading away and all because you were singing a lady gaga song
« Last Edit: August 16, 2013, 01:38:13 PM by pokepal148 »

Offline TJ Spyke

  • Ass
  • Score: -1350
    • View Profile
    • Spyke Shop
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2013, 01:39:57 PM »
Wow, so you are getting mad at nothing. The proposed changes makes NO impact on the legality of fan mixes. You seem to be getting mad at the increase in penalties, which is silly. If you think they fan remixes and trailers should have their status defined (which may never happen, as how MUCH of the copyrighted content you use has a impact on whether its fair use or not), fine. But your original post made it seem like you did not understand what was going on. But this rule change has no impact on the legality of things, so you shouldn't be upset at it. If a person would get arrested for copyright theft, they would have gotten arrested anyways.
Help out a poor college student, buy video games and Blu-ray Discs at: http://astore.amazon.com/spyke-20

Offline toddra

  • You dirty RAT
  • Score: -9
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2013, 01:51:01 PM »
Most people misunderstand "fair use" anyways fair use is NOT the law it is a doctrine for interpreting the law. It is always illegal period but it is a burden on the copyright holder to prove a violation has occurred not the other way around, all fair use does is makes it hard to sue someone unless their is a real reason to, nobody is going to sue over fan mixes period they would not risk upsetting their fans, tributes are and always will be acceptable as long as they do not cross that line of devaluing the original work.

Offline pokepal148

  • Inquire within for reasonable rates.
  • *
  • Score: -9967
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2013, 02:50:28 PM »
You seem to be getting mad at the increase in penalties, which is silly.
all i'm saying is that there needs to be a clear definition of what is and isn't copyright infringement. especially if the punishment is going to be this severe.

Offline toddra

  • You dirty RAT
  • Score: -9
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2013, 06:20:23 PM »
There is a clear cut definition of what is infringement, it is ALL infringement, but courts can decide on a case by case basis what is fair infringement. The law states that, I am summing up here, the copyright owner has exclusive rights to their works, exclusive being a key word though. This notion of Fair Use is very commonly misunderstood. It is NOT a part of the law the LAW is clear if you created it YOU own exclusive rights to it period. You do not even have to register with the government. Also remember that just because someone does something that is illegal does NOT magically make it legal and sometimes copyright owners either don't know about the infringement or they don't see it as a threat. Not taking action does not make it okay though and just because someone breaks the law does not make it legal all of a sudden.

The fair use doctrine is NOT law it is just a guide line the courts use when deciding a case, they can at ANY POINT choose to ignore the fair use doctrine and side with the copyright holder because that is what the law states. The courts often interpret laws in funny and contradictory ways.

Offline NWR_insanolord

  • Rocket Fuel Malt Liquor....DAMN!
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: -18986
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2013, 08:46:58 AM »
Streaming audio/video should not be a felony. That's just stupid.
Insanolord is a terrible moderator.

J.P. Corbran
NWR Community Manager and Soccer Correspondent

Offline NWR_insanolord

  • Rocket Fuel Malt Liquor....DAMN!
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: -18986
    • View Profile
Re: Off-Topic Wise-Ass Comments About Other NWR Forum Threads
« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2013, 08:56:32 AM »
I'm going to start a petition to make jaywalking punishable by death. And because increasing the punishment for something that's already illegal is something no one should be concerned about, I think anyone who disagrees with this proposal is an idiot.
Insanolord is a terrible moderator.

J.P. Corbran
NWR Community Manager and Soccer Correspondent

Offline lolmonade

  • I wanna ride dolphins with you in the moonlight until the staff at Sea World kicks us out
  • *
  • Score: 29
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2013, 09:59:12 AM »
Wasn't the only reason Google/Youtube/Wikipedia held opposition to the original SOPA bill because it held those companies personally liable for copyright infringements? 

If this new resurrection of SOPA places the ONUS on the person behind the streaming, then I don't see as much of an uproar happening, meaning it's much more likely this will get passed without much fervor.

--------
Toddra,

From Wikipedia:

Quote
Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.

So no, technically it isn't a "written law", but it is a clearly defined exception to copyright laws by judicial precedent, meaning there are circumstances in which streaming copyrighted material should be granted without permission.

Offline BranDonk Kong

  • Eat your f'ing cat!
  • Score: 10131
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2013, 10:22:48 AM »
Streaming audio/video should not be a felony. That's just stupid.

Exactly. Honestly if you're streaming like a live channel that has advertisements, it shouldn't even be a crime.
I think it says on the box, 'No Hispanics' " - Jeff Green of EA

Offline BlackNMild2k1

  • Animal Crossing Hustler
  • Score: 409
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Off-Topic Wise-Ass Comments About Other NWR Forum Threads
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2013, 11:01:01 AM »
But Insano, I jaywalk throughout the community... [/Black Dynamite reference]

Offline MegaByte

  • NWR Staff... Can't win trivia
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: 31337
    • View Profile
    • Konfiskated Teknologies Network
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2013, 11:39:33 AM »
I'm going to start a petition to make jaywalking punishable by death. And because increasing the punishment for something that's already illegal is something no one should be concerned about, I think anyone who disagrees with this proposal is an idiot.
I was going to make this same point. But to make the point even clearer, TJ Spyke is now banned.
Or are you trying to create controversy where there is none (something a certain political party loves to do).
The punishment is extreme, but nobody should be concerned because it was already against the rules.
Aaron Kaluszka
Contributing Editor, Nintendo World Report

Offline NWR_insanolord

  • Rocket Fuel Malt Liquor....DAMN!
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: -18986
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2013, 11:57:15 AM »
It was only a matter of time. He had so many second chances, and he just couldn't stop that kind of thing.
Insanolord is a terrible moderator.

J.P. Corbran
NWR Community Manager and Soccer Correspondent

Offline BlackNMild2k1

  • Animal Crossing Hustler
  • Score: 409
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2013, 05:44:40 PM »
HAHAHA LOL.

Point made.

Offline pokepal148

  • Inquire within for reasonable rates.
  • *
  • Score: -9967
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2013, 05:53:14 PM »
nicely done

Offline toddra

  • You dirty RAT
  • Score: -9
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2013, 06:39:03 PM »
Question? Is this TJ Spyke the same spike from a few years ago or was this someone else? Just curious not trying to dig up any trouble.

Offline NWR_insanolord

  • Rocket Fuel Malt Liquor....DAMN!
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: -18986
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2013, 06:49:01 PM »
I'm pretty sure it's somebody different.
Insanolord is a terrible moderator.

J.P. Corbran
NWR Community Manager and Soccer Correspondent

Offline pokepal148

  • Inquire within for reasonable rates.
  • *
  • Score: -9967
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #23 on: August 17, 2013, 07:09:42 PM »
There is a clear cut definition of what is infringement, it is ALL infringement, but courts can decide on a case by case basis what is fair infringement. The law states that, I am summing up here, the copyright owner has exclusive rights to their works, exclusive being a key word though. This notion of Fair Use is very commonly misunderstood. It is NOT a part of the law the LAW is clear if you created it YOU own exclusive rights to it period. You do not even have to register with the government. Also remember that just because someone does something that is illegal does NOT magically make it legal and sometimes copyright owners either don't know about the infringement or they don't see it as a threat. Not taking action does not make it okay though and just because someone breaks the law does not make it legal all of a sudden.

The fair use doctrine is NOT law it is just a guide line the courts use when deciding a case, they can at ANY POINT choose to ignore the fair use doctrine and side with the copyright holder because that is what the law states. The courts often interpret laws in funny and contradictory ways.

well then perhaps the intricacies of copyright law need to be explained more clearly (and if thats the case they need to be reformed as well)

Offline toddra

  • You dirty RAT
  • Score: -9
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #24 on: August 17, 2013, 07:25:45 PM »
Or a person could just you know come up with their own original ideas and not leech of the work of others?