[Macworld]

Post your comments for With SOPA, PIPA stalled, meet the OPEN Act here

[mike457]

I have big problems with all of these laws, chiefly on the grounds of extraterritoriality. The Internet is fundamentally international. Why should it be governed by US copyright law, particularly when US law is so subject to politics? US copyright law has a history of changing whenever Mickey Mouse might become public domain. Canada, the United States, the European Union, and many other countries have different laws, with different standards for copyright. I am sure that one of the main issues in the Megaupload trial is going to turn out to be jurisdiction.
All of the proposed US laws so far have the drawback that they interfere with my right in my country to use files that are legal in my country.

[Gorm]

Interesting. Outsourcing the implementation and enforcement of US law to the ITC is very innovative. Buying their cooperation must be cheaper than doing it here in the states.

[mdawson]

So, as the Megaupload case shows, all of these new laws are completely unnecessary, because content holders already have legal recourse for copyright infringement in the US. As Megaupload 1) offered services to US customers and 2) had servers in the US (Virginia) they made themselves subject to US law, heavy-handed as it may have been, if they engaged in repeated copyright infringement activities. Taking down Megaupload did not require SOPA or PROTECT IP, or for that matter, DMCA, another unnecessary law. Long before the formation of the RIAA and MPAA, the Industry has been bucking the ability of Joe and Jane Public to access content on their own terms once consumer mediums became reality, be it physical media or digital files.

While the OPEN Act may be seemingly less draconian, it, like the laws it is meant to replace, is wasted effort on the part of Congress given the much larger issues that now face the US. As the Founders feared, the US government has in many ways become the pawn of aristocratic power brokers that use the legislature to push their agenda rather than looking out for the greater good of the People. Ironically, this kind of crap goes as far back as the Washington Administration, as those holding office at any level are often already financially well off, sparsely relate to let alone care about the average citizen and always looking for another way to become richer regardless of the impact on others

As long as there is a buck to be made without necessarily doing anything illegal, not that that stops many of these people, nothing will ever change.

This post has been edited by mdawson: 23 January 2012 - 09:03 AM

[LingerFonebone]

These laws are an attempt to force countries to live up to their treaty obligations, since they don't seem interested in policing sites breaking the law within their own borders.

http://en.wikipedia....ight_agreements

[mdawson]

LingerFonebone, on 23 January 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

These laws are an attempt to force countries to live up to their treaty obligations, since they don't seem interested in policing sites breaking the law within their own borders.

http://en.wikipedia....ight_agreements

US Law has very little impact overseas and as a number of people on the Ars Technica boards have mentioned, many of the foreign services, such as Uploaded.to, may simply choose to no longer do business with Americans.

[WarrenS]

Open does not mean free. Pirate really does means steal. Protect doesn't mean ban.

It is the 14 years old mentality that "everything is free", I have heard all the excuses such as. " We are to smart to get caught", "no one will ever know", "we ain't hurting nobody", " those old people (30+) will never figure this out", " but, you don't understand, I really want it", and finally, " nobody told me I couldn't" all of which are just excuses for stealing.
Don't believe it when: MacWorld says, "use your own judgement." Don't believe it when "my mother said I could." And the last lie is "I read somewhere that it was ok."
Grow up, get a job and pay for what you want. If you can't afford it, sell your collection of Star Wars memorabilia.

[Bmaessch]

WarrenS, on 23 January 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

Open does not mean free. Pirate really does means steal. Protect doesn't mean ban.

It is the 14 years old mentality that "everything is free", I have heard all the excuses such as. " We are to smart to get caught", "no one will ever know", "we ain't hurting nobody", " those old people (30+) will never figure this out", " but, you don't understand, I really want it", and finally, " nobody told me I couldn't" all of which are just excuses for stealing.
Don't believe it when: MacWorld says, "use your own judgement." Don't believe it when "my mother said I could." And the last lie is "I read somewhere that it was ok."
Grow up, get a job and pay for what you want. If you can't afford it, sell your collection of Star Wars memorabilia.

I must agree, nothing is free, and we should pay a fair(!!!!!) amount for movies etc, however, I think the large part of the people just want an easy way to download content(for example, i live in belgium and it has taken iTunes till this year to offer me a limited(!!!!) choice of movies I could legally download. Before that I had to go to the store to buy a dvd i wanted or download it illegally. Why not offer me a digital download of your entire collection, and why was it DRM protected so that I could not play it in my mp3 enabled car stereo? Why make it hard to buy something?

I must say it is mainly the fault of the recording industry and the movie industry that piracy is so popular, when there is a demand for something(namely digital downloads) and you do not offer it people will find ways around it(piracy)

You may disagree, but i am still not able to download all movies legally that one can acquire via illegal ways. Just give the people what they want, be it paid or unpaid

EDIT: Ow before I forget, I find it disturbing that us legislators think they can apply their laws in the whole world. Could you imagine that Belgian law was applied in Us territories? That is not a question about piracy, but just about them forcing laws onto people who have not elected them. Kinda dictatorial.

EDIT2:I am not promoting piracy, I have a huge collection of legally bought music in iTunes store, just saying they should give more choice of content(like movies etc.)

This post has been edited by Bmaessch: 23 January 2012 - 12:29 PM

[Success]

Am now hearing about Black March, to run all of this coming March.

Here is an excerpt from the asian-artists web page:


With the continuing campaigns for Internet-censoring litigation such as SOPA and PIPA, and the closure of sites such as Megaupload under allegations of ‘piracy’ and ‘conspiracy’ the time has come to take a stand against music, film and media companies’ lobbyists.

The only way is to hit them where it truly hurts.
Their profit margins.

March 2012 is the end of the 1st quarter in economic reports worldwide.

Do not buy a single record. Do not download a single song, legally or illegally. Do not go to see a single film in cinemas, or download a copy, Do not buy a DVD in the stores. Do not buy a videogame. Do not buy a single book or magazine.

Wait the 4 weeks to buy them in April:
see the film later, etc. Holding out for just 4 weeks, maximum, will leave a gaping hole in media and entertainment companies’ profits for the 1st quarter, an economic hit which will in turn be observed by governments worldwide as stocks and shares will blip from a large enough loss of incomes.
This action can give a statement of intent:

”We will not tolerate the Media Industries’ lobbying for legislation which will censor the internet.”


[ I am not the organizer nor part of the movement; just passing along what I cam across. BTW, the above was posted 3 days ago. It is not the only site I've seen with the Black March posting. ]

[Swift2]

I love the selective citizenship of "American" corporations, you know? I am American if it profits the bottom line. If some other citizenship is required for the bottom line, I can hire translators, and sign me up! But if some guy is selling pirated copies of the latest comic book movie in 3D on the street in Shenzhen, unleash the 7th Fleet to defend "American" companies.

I'm with Y Combinator. Old entertainment companies have held monopolies in foreign countries around the world and they will be punished as long as they remain so hegemonic. Google, Apple, whoever: finance production that can be circulated on the network as data with the conditions the originators want. In ten years? Sign on to see the new 8K film from your favorite director. It's downloaded during the night to your TV. You play it once on your 80" OLED. Then jump on the conversation sections and see what people think of it. FaceTime other fans. The Broadcast metaphor is SO 20th Century.

[mdawson]

WarrenS, on 23 January 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

Open does not mean free. Pirate really does means steal. Protect doesn't mean ban.

It is the 14 years old mentality that "everything is free", I have heard all the excuses such as. " We are to smart to get caught", "no one will ever know", "we ain't hurting nobody", " those old people (30+) will never figure this out", " but, you don't understand, I really want it", and finally, " nobody told me I couldn't" all of which are just excuses for stealing.
Don't believe it when: MacWorld says, "use your own judgement." Don't believe it when "my mother said I could." And the last lie is "I read somewhere that it was ok."
Grow up, get a job and pay for what you want. If you can't afford it, sell your collection of Star Wars memorabilia.

I would somewhat agree with what you have stated, WarrenS. I have always been into music, but for the extent of my childhood I lacked the financial resources to buy music. In fact, growing up in a low income household, my choice was choosing between satisfying my interest in home computing or building a music collection; I wound up choosing the former. Any music I had was confined to listening to the radio or recording from the radio. Once I was in college and had some income, I began buying records and later CDs. Being of limited income, I had to prioritize my purchase choices. If I were buying mostly albums, that would not have been problematic, but much of what I bought were singles given that, as I mentioned in another thread, for black music, remixes may often more popular than the album versions. The availability of singles has always been fleeting. I never chose to steal music despite my financial limitations, but as time went on other avenues of legitimate acquisition came to pass thanks to the Internet; e.g., eBay, GEMM.com, etc. Had downloading been an option for me 20+ years ago, I still would not do it, as I do not now, for the same reason I did not buy music on audio tapes: degraded quality out-of-the-box.

As to stealing, taking a record or CD from a record store is theft. Referring to what is going on on the Internet as theft is nothing more than misusing terminology to garner a certain response. In order for a theft to occur, there must be an actual loss of property. The rights holder still has their content to distribute and a shopkeeper has not had items that they paid to acquire for sale removed from their store without compensation. Outside the scale of access, downloading content from the Web is no different from acquiring a dub from a friend in the past.

Piracy is an act of theft of goods under transport with threat of death, typically on the open seas. Last I heard, there has not been a wave of armed young people boarding cargo vessels or stopping tractor trailers on the Interstates to steal media over the past decade. Also, as downloading does not involve taking physical items it is not stealing. Due to their severity, particularly in the case of piracy, as it always included the threat of violence, piracy and theft cases are handled in criminal courts by the state.

Illegal downloading is nuveau bootlegging, and like any other copyright infringement handled by the civil courts. The RIAA and MPAA are doing nothing more than engaging in wordplay to escalate a civil matter to a criminal matter. Also, if the so called pirates "did without" the Industry would still have their so-called losses. The fact of the matter is that you cannot lose that which you would have never had in the first place. So whether these persons engage in illegal downloading or not is really of little consequence unless you are inclined to believe, as the RIAA and MPAA would attempt to sell to the public, that heavy downloaders do so solely for the the purpose of avoiding paying for content; read, they can afford to buy music, movies, etc

As I have stated in previous posts here and elsewhere, the existing copyright laws already give rights holders legal recourse for prosecuting people that infringe copyright. The redefining of terminology and push for new legislation is nothing more than a power grab by certain content owners.

This post has been edited by mdawson: 23 January 2012 - 01:20 PM

[Bmaessch]

mdawson, on 23 January 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

WarrenS, on 23 January 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

Open does not mean free. Pirate really does means steal. Protect doesn't mean ban.

It is the 14 years old mentality that "everything is free", I have heard all the excuses such as. " We are to smart to get caught", "no one will ever know", "we ain't hurting nobody", " those old people (30+) will never figure this out", " but, you don't understand, I really want it", and finally, " nobody told me I couldn't" all of which are just excuses for stealing.
Don't believe it when: MacWorld says, "use your own judgement." Don't believe it when "my mother said I could." And the last lie is "I read somewhere that it was ok."
Grow up, get a job and pay for what you want. If you can't afford it, sell your collection of Star Wars memorabilia.

I would somewhat agree with what you have stated, WarrenS. I have always been into music, but for the extent of my childhood I lacked the financial resources to buy music. In fact, growing up in a low income household, my choice was choosing between satisfying my interest in home computing or building a music collection; I wound up choosing the former. Any music I had was confined to listening to the radio or recording from the radio. Once I was in college and had some income, I began buying records and later CDs. Being of limited income, I had to prioritize my purchase choices. If I were buying mostly albums, that would not have been problematic, but much of what I bought were singles given that, as I mentioned in another thread, for black music, remixes may often more popular than the album versions. The availability of singles has always been fleeting. I never chose to steal music despite my financial limitations, but as time went on other avenues of legitimate acquisition came to pass thanks to the Internet; e.g., eBay, GEMM.com, etc. Had downloading been an option for me 20+ years ago, I still would not do it, as I do not now, for the same reason I did not buy music on audio tapes: degraded quality out-of-the-box.

As to stealing, taking a record or CD from a record store is theft. Referring to what is going on on the Internet as theft is nothing more than misusing terminology to garner a certain response. In order for a theft to occur, there must be an actual loss of property. The rights holder still has their content to distribute and a shopkeeper has not had items that they paid to acquire for sale removed from their store without compensation. Outside the scale of access, downloading content from the Web is no different from acquiring a dub from a friend in the past.

Piracy is an act of theft of goods under transport with threat of death, typically on the open seas. Last I heard, there has not been a wave of armed young people boarding cargo vessels or stopping tractor trailers on the Interstates to steal media over the past decade. Also, as downloading does not involve taking physical items it is not stealing. Due to their severity, particularly in the case of piracy, as it always included the threat of violence, piracy and theft cases are handled in criminal courts by the state.

Illegal downloading is nuveau bootlegging, and like any other copyright infringement handled by the civil courts. The RIAA and MPAA are doing nothing more than engaging in wordplay to escalate a civil matter to a criminal matter. Also, if the so called pirates "did without" the Industry would still have their so-called losses. The fact of the matter is that you cannot lose that which you would have never had in the first place. So whether these persons engage in illegal downloading or not is really of little consequence unless you are inclined to believe, as the RIAA and MPAA would attempt to sell to the public, that heavy downloaders do so solely for the the purpose of avoiding paying for content; read, they can afford to buy music, movies, etc

As I have stated in previous posts here and elsewhere, the existing copyright laws already give rights holders legal recourse for prosecuting people that infringe copyright. The redefining of terminology and push for new legislation is nothing more than a power grab by certain content owners.

Couldn't agree more, and RIAA and MPAA you were just lawyered by mdawson

[Eric72]

mdawson, on 23 January 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

So, as the Megaupload case shows, all of these new laws are completely unnecessary, because content holders already have legal recourse for copyright infringement in the US. As Megaupload 1) offered services to US customers and 2) had servers in the US (Virginia) they made themselves subject to US law, heavy-handed as it may have been, if they engaged in repeated copyright infringement activities. Taking down Megaupload did not require SOPA or PROTECT IP, or for that matter, DMCA, another unnecessary law. Long before the formation of the RIAA and MPAA, the Industry has been bucking the ability of Joe and Jane Public to access content on their own terms once consumer mediums became reality, be it physical media or digital files.

While the OPEN Act may be seemingly less draconian, it, like the laws it is meant to replace, is wasted effort on the part of Congress given the much larger issues that now face the US. As the Founders feared, the US government has in many ways become the pawn of aristocratic power brokers that use the legislature to push their agenda rather than looking out for the greater good of the People. Ironically, this kind of crap goes as far back as the Washington Administration, as those holding office at any level are often already financially well off, sparsely relate to let alone care about the average citizen and always looking for another way to become richer regardless of the impact on others

As long as there is a buck to be made without necessarily doing anything illegal, not that that stops many of these people, nothing will ever change.

Well said!

[charlituna]

this sounds more like it. I had no issue with the penalties of the other two like being delisted and be cut off from paypal, adsense etc. but the whole notion of no oversight to check for fair use versus blatant offense bothered me. This OPEN Act sounds like it is trying to cover that base.