Author Topic: Screw the OP, Lets just start arguing about copyright law  (Read 22389 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline UncleBob

  • (PATRON)
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 98
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2013, 09:02:49 PM »
Regarding the actual topic in the OP - the way I understand it, they're simply proposing changing the law so that streaming copyrighted material has the same penalties as file distribution, right?

This is like, speeding in a car is a $25 fine, but speeding in a pick up is a $50 fine - and they just want to make both a $50 fine...  right?
Just some random guy on the internet who has a different opinion of games than you.

Offline nickmitch

  • You can edit these yourself now?!
  • Score: 82
    • View Profile
    • FACEBOOK!
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2013, 09:08:22 PM »
It seems more like they want to equate being a drug lord with being a street dealer.
TVman is dead. I killed him and took his posts.

Offline BranDonk Kong

  • Eat your f'ing cat!
  • Score: 10131
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2013, 09:15:00 PM »
Or a recreational user.
I think it says on the box, 'No Hispanics' " - Jeff Green of EA

Offline toddra

  • You dirty RAT
  • Score: -9
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #28 on: August 18, 2013, 12:38:32 PM »
all proposals I support. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.


Offline toddra

  • You dirty RAT
  • Score: -9
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #30 on: August 18, 2013, 05:45:45 PM »
Or I could just let it go.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 06:03:28 PM by toddra »

Offline pokepal148

  • Inquire within for reasonable rates.
  • *
  • Score: -9967
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #31 on: August 18, 2013, 06:23:57 PM »
well yeah if you have questionable morals that article might hold true but not everyone works like that. For crying out loud it's not like it's the end of the world if you can't listen to your music or watch tv shows you didn't pay for. Should we just put shackles on the ankles of the actors, producers, and crew who make TV shows and force them to entertain us without compensation for their work? Stealing is stealing there is NEVER an excuse for it. Period.
that isn't the problem i have. the problem is how these laws may come to be abused beyond curbing piracy. And I wish I was talking hypothetical but it has happened with other copyright laws.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/03/dmca_chilling_effects_how_copyright_law_hurts_security_research.html

http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/072313-dmca-abusers-go-after-media-clips-on-asiana-pilots-senator-warren/

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130730/17572624008/rotolight-uses-dmca-to-censor-review-they-didnt-like-admits-to-dmca-abuse-censorship.shtml

Offline toddra

  • You dirty RAT
  • Score: -9
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #32 on: August 18, 2013, 08:15:12 PM »
But we don't live in a perfect world, people are going to break the law no matter what it says, likewise people are always going to abuse the law no matter what it says. The best we can do is give law enforcement the tools they need to protect the rights of the citizens they serve and to bring the law breakers to justice. It is not a perfect system but it is as close as we as humans are ever going to get.

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #33 on: August 18, 2013, 08:56:15 PM »
There is a problem with what you have said. To sum it up what you have just said is "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".

What happens when the injustice stems from the enforcement of laws or even the law itself? Does bring in law breakers justify curbing rights? Does making something lawful or illegal make it just? Handwaving it off as the best imperfect system we have is a massive diservice to both the pursuit of justice and the idea we can do better.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline Wah

  • Social Worker who's hip with the kids
  • *
  • Score: -44
    • View Profile
    • My Youtube Channel
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #34 on: August 18, 2013, 09:06:38 PM »
Dude....I constantly stream copyrighted material. I'm watching Adventure Time right now as we speak.
And i'am watching game of thrones! a'll from my best friend the internet! :P:
Made you look ****.

Offline toddra

  • You dirty RAT
  • Score: -9
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #35 on: August 18, 2013, 09:14:28 PM »
If you're going to turn this into a political discussion I think things are going to escalate. The problem is laws are already being broken and rights are already being ignored, there is always going to be abuse no matter what, you make it sound like we should just not have any laws at all and just exercise our right to do whatever the hell we want willy nilly.

The people this affects are those who already are on the fringe anyways, true law abiding citizens don't have anything to worry about. Just because someone does something you don't like doesn't automatically make it wrong. But if we as a society authorize our representatives to make that judgment in our best interest then we as citizens have a duty to either respect that judgement or petition our representatives to correct the injustice. Should we just all live in fear of some imaginary totalitarian government or should we just abide by the law as best we can and if something happens that affects us then we have a system that allows us to take our grievences to the courts and have them review said law. Do you honestly think if this gets passed it is going to Angry Video Game Nerd into a criminal? No what it is going to do is crack down on harmful infringements.

I have recently been in contact with Nintendo over the course of several months trying to get them to take action against dozens of illegal sites and their response was they have to pick their battles. You are being paranoid that is all there is too it.


None of those examples are anything to get worried about complaints were filed that was all just pure paranoia nothing happened no foul no harm so what is the big deal?

Offline nickmitch

  • You can edit these yourself now?!
  • Score: 82
    • View Profile
    • FACEBOOK!
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #36 on: August 18, 2013, 09:21:33 PM »
Don't you see? This is exactly why Gotham City needs a Batman!
TVman is dead. I killed him and took his posts.

Offline pokepal148

  • Inquire within for reasonable rates.
  • *
  • Score: -9967
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #37 on: August 18, 2013, 09:27:20 PM »
http://www.law360.com/articles/410178/mom-s-suit-over-son-s-prince-ly-youtube-dance-survives there, a lawsuit thats been going on since 2007. I think there might be some harm and foul here.

Offline toddra

  • You dirty RAT
  • Score: -9
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #38 on: August 18, 2013, 10:43:36 PM »
a youtube video was removed where is the harm? They should have you know asked permission to use the song in the first place when you go through proper channels you tend to get permission just doing it and then claiming fair use is not good enough. I had a video taken down from Youtube where I actually did have permission from the author, I showed them the proof they let me put the video back up. What is so wrong with just playing by the rules?


I want to further elaborate before you reply with some more nonsense. Public performances are NOT covered under Fair Use, Public performances are considered infringement that is why performers have to get permission to use any song they want even if it is a school play especially if it is a Youtube channel where you can you know receive compensation in the form of revenue sharing.


It is always better to ask permission than to ask forgiveness, and in case of copyright law usually just asking is more than enough to get you in the clear but when you do it anyways you always run the risk of getting in trouble it is always better to be safe than sorry, how is that so hard to grasp?


None of this has anything to do with Youtube videos anyways, they are going after people who post full movies and episodes of TV shows without permission and allow users to stream them for free. That is and should be illegal.


What this does is it will give the authorities power to shut down those sites that make movies, tv shows, and sporting events available bypassing the proper channels. That is all, it will NOT affect Youtube one bit so long as the youtubers play buy the rules, those who fall on the outside well run the risk of getting into trouble and that is their fault for not double checking.

Bottom line is it is always better to just ask first, if they author says okay fine go ahead do your work if they author says nope or asks for money then that is it, if you do it without permission and the author catches you they can, if they so choose, to come after you. You might be able to argue it is fair use to the courts and if the court agrees then okay you set a precedent or at the very least dodged a bullet. BTW I am a communications major I have studied copyright law extensively and the law is very clear the author has exclusive rights to distribute, perform, or make copies of their protected works and it should be that way if you were an author it would piss you off if someone was steeling from you and that is why it makes me so damn angry is because people forget that corporations do not exist they are made up of hard working people trying to make a damn living for crying out loud.

It's just like the Happy Birthday song, you want to sing it in public you had better damn well write a letter to Warner first.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 11:07:03 PM by toddra »

Offline Adrock

  • Chill, Valentine
  • Score: 138
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #39 on: August 19, 2013, 12:22:29 AM »
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.
I'm pretty sure it's somebody different.
Charles what now?

Seriously, I'm confused. There was more than one TJ Spyke?

Offline Wah

  • Social Worker who's hip with the kids
  • *
  • Score: -44
    • View Profile
    • My Youtube Channel
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2013, 12:36:04 AM »
If you're going to turn this into a political discussion I think things are going to escalate. The problem is laws are already being broken and rights are already being ignored, there is always going to be abuse no matter what, you make it sound like we should just not have any laws at all and just exercise our right to do whatever the hell we want willy nilly.

The people this affects are those who already are on the fringe anyways, true law abiding citizens don't have anything to worry about. Just because someone does something you don't like doesn't automatically make it wrong. But if we as a society authorize our representatives to make that judgment in our best interest then we as citizens have a duty to either respect that judgement or petition our representatives to correct the injustice. Should we just all live in fear of some imaginary totalitarian government or should we just abide by the law as best we can and if something happens that affects us then we have a system that allows us to take our grievences to the courts and have them review said law. Do you honestly think if this gets passed it is going to Angry Video Game Nerd into a criminal? No what it is going to do is crack down on harmful infringements.

I have recently been in contact with Nintendo over the course of several months trying to get them to take action against dozens of illegal sites and their response was they have to pick their battles. You are being paranoid that is all there is too it.


None of those examples are anything to get worried about complaints were filed that was all just pure paranoia nothing happened no foul no harm so what is the big deal?
I don't see pirating wrong if it's for your own use!
Made you look ****.

Offline MegaByte

  • NWR Staff... Can't win trivia
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: 31337
    • View Profile
    • Konfiskated Teknologies Network
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #41 on: August 19, 2013, 01:41:27 AM »
It's just like the Happy Birthday song, you want to sing it in public you had better damn well write a letter to Warner first.
Funny you should mention that...
Aaron Kaluszka
Contributing Editor, Nintendo World Report

Offline toddra

  • You dirty RAT
  • Score: -9
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #42 on: August 19, 2013, 07:41:55 AM »
thats old news, they already dropped the lawsuit.

Offline pokepal148

  • Inquire within for reasonable rates.
  • *
  • Score: -9967
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #43 on: August 20, 2013, 03:31:33 PM »
In the way the internet has evolved has created an absolutely massive gray area in what you would call "copyright infringement". things like fan trailers and tributes that will outright become expressions of love for the original copyright owners. I fail to see that as theft. I see that as an expression of love for the original creation. At times they end up being used for simple little jokes (in response to Peter Capaldi being announced as the next Doctor we have seen a number of videos poking fun at Capaldi's previous role as Malcom Tucker).

The internet has become a place of expression. if it has proven anything its this: copyright infringement isn't always harmful. provisions need to put in place to protect these types of things that ultimately wind up being harmless. although the people who create those types of things aren't off the hook and had better give credit to the original copyright owners (which they have done an excellent job of so far)

Offline Soren

  • Hanging out in the Discord
  • *
  • Score: 35
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #44 on: August 20, 2013, 05:28:11 PM »
What this does is it will give the authorities power to shut down those sites that make movies, tv shows, and sporting events available bypassing the proper channels. That is all, it will NOT affect Youtube one bit so long as the youtubers play buy the rules, those who fall on the outside well run the risk of getting into trouble and that is their fault for not double checking.

So their punishment for not double checking and getting into trouble should be a felony conviction?! Oh please.

On some jurisdictions you could face misdemeanor charges for simple assault or reckless driving(you know, things that put people in harms way). But God help you if you upload that compilation of Pauley Perrette's best scenes on NCIS to YouTube.

It's just like the Happy Birthday song, you want to sing it in public you had better damn well write a letter to Warner first.

Sure thing. Just let me run to the store and get some postage stamps. Then I'll go to my nearest mailbox and send the letter ASAP.
My YouTube Channel: SenerioTV

Offline Morari

  • 46 DC EA D3 17 FE 45 D8 09 23 EB 97 E4 95 64 10 D4 CD B2 C2
  • Score: -7237
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #45 on: August 20, 2013, 07:24:31 PM »
THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION

--Bureau of Internet Morality
« Last Edit: February 06, 2021, 08:04:30 PM by Morari »
"This post has been censored for your protection."

                                --Bureau of Internet Morality

Offline toddra

  • You dirty RAT
  • Score: -9
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #46 on: August 20, 2013, 08:48:46 PM »
So having a moral compass and doing good is now equal to being bad? That makes no sense. And I am not talking about tributes, although using that as proof is not valid because when corporate broadcasters do those things they do get permission first, but when some chump on Youtube does it they should just get a free pass?


It does cause harm how do you not see that? There are actors who are starving because they can't get paying gigs because piracy is out of control and Youtube is changing the entire industry so people are getting used to having to work for little to no pay and that is a good thing? You mean to tell me that you think that just because someone made something that YOU like it gives you the right to make money off it because it is a tribute? If you want to show them love buy their **** and pay them for their work. How hard is that? Do you also support sneaking into ballgames, movie theaters, and airplanes? Do you not realize that when big corporations lose money they downsize and they downsize by LAYING PEOPLE OFF, good hard working people who lose their jobs because of this ****. Holy crap anyone who thinks that is GOOD is out of their damn mind.

If you ever worked in the entertainment business you would know how much this **** is destroying our economy. Our nations number one export is entertainment, and if that starts to fall we are in deep **** because we don't have anything to replace it since we lost our edge in manufacturing. I should have said if you ever worked period because in my experience the people who tend to support any form of infringment or piracy are usually bums anyways.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 08:52:24 PM by toddra »

Offline Soren

  • Hanging out in the Discord
  • *
  • Score: 35
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #47 on: August 20, 2013, 09:10:37 PM »
There are actors who are starving because they can't get paying gigs because piracy is out of control and Youtube is changing the entire industry so people are getting used to having to work for little to no pay and that is a good thing...

Ah yes. How I long for pre-internet days where every actor that went to Hollywood found a nice acting gig and didn't starve. Now it's all kids and unemployed bums with nothing to do wasting time uploading episodes of Dharma and Greg. And what are these actors to do but take jobs as waiters and bartenders.
My YouTube Channel: SenerioTV

Offline Morari

  • 46 DC EA D3 17 FE 45 D8 09 23 EB 97 E4 95 64 10 D4 CD B2 C2
  • Score: -7237
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #48 on: August 20, 2013, 09:23:48 PM »
This is awesome! Toddra is now my new favorite poster. Are we sure he's not one of TJ's puppets?

Anyway... the only way to get paid is by actually doing something worth getting paid for, like giving me a physical copy of a book, or a concert I can go to, etc. Some industries have already made this transition. Wedding photographers used to shoot weddings for a minimal fee, then charge a large amount for prints and reprints. If you wanted extra copies of your wedding photos for your extended family, you had to pay for the extra prints.

With the advent of scanners and dirt-cheap photo printers, they've transitioned to a model where they charge a lot for shooting the wedding, but charge little for the prints or even give them away for free. Technically they can charge for the prints as they did before, but realistically they know it's so easy to make copies there's no possible way they'd be able to enforce their copyright for every photo the take. So they've just restructured their payment system to reflect reality, rather than copyright laws.

Forget for a moment everything about copyright, publishing, movie/music production, etc. Think of this purely in terms of work vs. compensation. I shoot photos of a wedding and process the photos. That's a lot of work. I print pictures of said wedding. That's very little work. Under the old model, the payment system did not reflect my costs - I charged very little for the part which required a lot of work on my part, but charged a lot for the part which required almost no effort. The new system fixes this. I now charge a lot for the part which requires a lot of work, and charge little for the part which requires little work. The same thing has got to happen to books, music, and movies. In the old days, musicians and actors were paid for live performances. That is the norm.

In the 20th century there was a bit less than 100 years where technology was good enough to allow mass duplication, but not good enough to lower cost of duplication to the point where individuals could duplicate. This allowed a business model to flourish in which payment did not reflect costs. Musicians and actors were able to work once, then sit back and make money over and over based on that single performance. This is not normal. No other business is like that - you have to constantly work if you want to keep making money.

Now in the 21st century, the cost of mass duplication has fallen far enough that it's now easily within grasp of the individual. No longer does it make sense for people to be charged large amounts of money for what is a nearly free service (duplication). People may be stuck on the morality of it because the 20th century way is all they've ever known. But strictly in terms of work invested vs. compensation, the 20th century way was clearly wrong since the most money was being made for the step which cost the least money.

The transition to a model where content creators are not paid for duplication services is not some new journey into unexplored territory. It is a return to what was the norm for millenia. For most of history, duplication was impossible (performances) or nearly impossible (books), so the only way to get paid was for the actual content creation. During the 20th century, duplication became possible, and content creators leveraged it to get paid multiple times over for the same work. Now in the 21st century duplication has become so cheap that people are starting to question if it's really fair for content creators to be paid multiple times for the same job. That is the true crux of the matter, not who owns the work or whether copying is stealing.

I do believe in copyright - the temporary monopoly does encourage creation. But the terms have to be reasonable. With duplication costs having dropped to almost zero, preventing society from making copies simply because of archaic laws does more harm than good. Something like 10-20 years for copyright seems about right to me. Copyright is fundamentally about encouraging creativity and creation of new content. A copyright term of life + 70 years discourages creativity, and instead encourages trying to figure out how to create something new once and live off it for the rest of your life.
"This post has been censored for your protection."

                                --Bureau of Internet Morality

Offline pokepal148

  • Inquire within for reasonable rates.
  • *
  • Score: -9967
    • View Profile
Re: oh for @&/? sake
« Reply #49 on: August 20, 2013, 10:38:52 PM »
So having a moral compass and doing good is now equal to being bad? That makes no sense. And I am not talking about tributes, although using that as proof is not valid because when corporate broadcasters do those things they do get permission first, but when some chump on Youtube does it they should just get a free pass?
I can use the strawmans fallacy as well you know, allow me to demonstrate
Quote
It does cause harm how do you not see that?
There are actors who are starving because they can't get paying gigs because piracy is out of control and Youtube is changing the entire industry so people are getting used to having to work for little to no pay and that is a good thing?
so those hollywood actors who make more money in a year then the average American in a lifetime are starving now?

Quote
You mean to tell me that you think that just because someone made something that YOU like it gives you the right to make money off it because it is a tribute? If you want to show them love buy their **** and pay them for their work. How hard is that?
im pretty sure most people making those trailers did "buy their ****" and that they are expressing how much of a satisfied customer they are. :D

Quote
Do you also support sneaking into ballgames, movie theaters, and airplanes? Do you not realize that when big corporations lose money they downsize and they downsize by LAYING PEOPLE OFF, good hard working people who lose their jobs because of this ****. Holy crap anyone who thinks that is GOOD is out of their damn mind.
how on earth did you get this idea... wtf your making Tj look good now... although i should get around to demonstrating my skill with the strawman fallacy.
Quote
If you ever worked in the entertainment business you would know how much this **** is destroying our economy.

yes because so many people lost their jobs because a two year old sang a Prince song... screw wall street, screw the real estate market, the entire recession was caused by a two year old singing a prince song. and the euro crisis is because someone made a doctor who tribute(lets not go further in this example, big uncle(bob) is watching)

Quote
Our nations number one export is entertainment, and if that starts to fall we are in deep **** because we don't have anything to replace it since we lost our edge in manufacturing.
idk silicon valley seems to be quite a close contender,

Quote
I should have said if you ever worked period because in my experience the people who tend to support any form of infringment or piracy are usually bums anyways.
so now we are resorting to name calling... you have officially outdone Tj in every regard.