CosmicBills Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 This bill goes FAR beyond protecting copyright and preventing piracy. It basically gives the copyright holder FULL CONTROL of their peice of work. That's not what the idea of copyright is supposed to be for. 125598[/snapback] That is exactly what copyright is supposed to be for. It is designed to make sure the author of the piece gets all the profits he is due. Imagine you were selling apples on the street and someone comes up to your stand and swipes 100 of your apples and begins to sell them for half the price. First, the theif should be prosecuted for theft and secondly the profits he made off of your product rightfully belongs to you. If my landlord steals my security deposit, the government doesn't pay for me to take him to court to recoup my damages. Why should they do it for a downloaded MP3? 125598[/snapback] You're absolutely right. But again, this is where I think you are misinterpreting the bill. It is not going to require the government to go after every single violator of copyright laws. What it does is allow the organizations to go to the JD for assistance and help in massive class action suites. Using your analogy, the JD won't get involved if it's one landlord stealing your deposit or even 100 landlords. But if it's 1,000 landlords stealing 100 people's deposits then the sheer cost of such litigation would prevent any action from being taken. This part of the law offers relief in such instances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 CW we will continue this later, I am off to go see National Treasure... Damn, I almost forgot to bring my camcorder (hey, I finally found a good place to use the icon!) lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 I don't understand why whois information has to be made public. I own quite a few domains and it brings me nothing but spam. As for copyright laws, its a complete joke. Just shows you that money dictates laws in the country instead of the moral calculus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwolf02 Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Please don't bring politics into this. Either send a message (and say you did), or ignore it. I don't want this to become a flame thread like every other political one. The fact of the matter is, this sort of thing has been happening under democrats AND republicans. The PATRIOT act, for example, was signed by EVERYONE but the WI representative, Feingold (if I recall correctly). This isn't a party thing, it's a "kickbacks from big companies" thing. CW 125102[/snapback] i think it was kusinich, but point taken. every one argues democrat vs. republican, when in all reality, they're exactly the same. they basically just use two different tactics to reach the same goal most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 19, 2004 Author Share Posted November 19, 2004 The MPAA did try to outlaw VCRs, before they realized how big of a profit can be made off of home movies. They adapted to the technology and managed to do so without rewriting the laws. But now the technology has outgrown the law to such an extent that organizations such as the MPAA, WGA, SAG etc cannot possible be expected to keep up. Without new laws the piracy will only get worse. The only reason they adapted to the technology was because the law was not passed. That's the same thing with this current law -- the business needs to adapt to the times, not vice versa. Also, piracy has never been shown to affect the bottom lines of the MPAA or RIAA. There's been some corralation, but no causation has been presented. Fact is, the RIAA and MPAA are both making record amounts of money. Piracy is not currently making even a dent in the marketplace (for the RIAA and MPAA at least). People think that violations of IP only affects those that are already loaded (people like Brad Pitt or Tom Hanks, the top billing guys) but they forget that piracy affects literally THOUSANDS of people. From the guy holding the boom on the movie set, to the guy behind the engineering board during the recording of a new CD, to the guy working as an assistant at a Publishing house, to the guy who takes tickets at the local movie theater...all these people are affected. If Piracy is allowed to go on unchecked, it affects every one of these people. I'm not in favor of piracy. However, I am in favor of being able to use something I buy the way I want to. With the proposed laws, it'd be illegal for me to record a show, edit out the commericals, and re-record it to a DVD for my own personal use. As the proposed law is written, it's illegal to fast forward through the commericals on a DVD recording (we're not just talking DVRs and VCRs, we're talking pressed DVDs that you buy at the store). Also, why should it be illegal for me to rip a DVD to my own harddrive if I wanted to make a "movie server" in my basement? It currently is, thanks to CSS and the DMCA. I *bought* the DVD, I should be able to take a screenshot from the movie and make it my wallpaper if I want, edit a few scenes from my favorite movie and make some parady changes to them if I want, rip all of my movies and put them on a central server so that I can watch them without the disk if I want. All of those rights are currently taken away from me, and this bill wants to take away even more of my rights. That's not protecting copyright holders, that's giving them absolute control which is NOT what the copyright laws are for. Why shouldn't government enact laws that protect such a large part of our national economy? Why shouldn't they prevent theft? Does the government get involved if I steal a bag of chips from the convenience store? No, the store charges me with shoplifting. The various industries should have to prove that I stole something (or am stealing something), and not just put a big net over a bunch of people and accuse them of illegal activities without any proof. That's what the RIAA is doing with their P2P lawsuits -- even though there are perfectly legal uses for P2P networks, they've been trying to make all P2P software illegal as well. All of this just doesn't sit right with me (and this goes well beyond this one bill). CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Does the government get involved if I steal a bag of chips from the convenience store? No, the store charges me with shoplifting. The various industries should have to prove that I stole something (or am stealing something), and not just put a big net over a bunch of people and accuse them of illegal activities without any proof. That's what the RIAA is doing with their P2P lawsuits -- even though there are perfectly legal uses for P2P networks, they've been trying to make all P2P software illegal as well. All of this just doesn't sit right with me (and this goes well beyond this one bill). CW 125632[/snapback] I worked for an ISP over the summer and there is flaws in the whole P2P lawsuits. Basically the RIAA gave us a list of IP's that have been listed as copyright violators. We'd then shut them off and had the violator talk to our abuse department. A lot of the time its someone running a wireless router with no WEP authentication. The neighbor's kids next door are downloading music off of that. Another thing I saw often was people staticing in an IP address. In a dynamic IP environment our logs shows we assigned an IP to person A. However person B can static in that IP and is download all day long. We could track it down to a node, but that's about it. When i left they were working on technology to improve this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 19, 2004 Author Share Posted November 19, 2004 That is exactly what copyright is supposed to be for. It is designed to make sure the author of the piece gets all the profits he is due. Imagine you were selling apples on the street and someone comes up to your stand and swipes 100 of your apples and begins to sell them for half the price. First, the theif should be prosecuted for theft and secondly the profits he made off of your product rightfully belongs to you. Yes, copyright makes sure that the owner makes money from their work, I'm not disputing that. But your apple example is flawed. I'm looking at it like this: You're selling apples and label them as "Tasty treats to snack on!" I buy your apple, but instead of eating it, I turn it into an apple pie. Under the proposed laws (and lots of current laws), that would be illegal, even though I paid you for the apple already. That's exactly the same as my DVD example - I bought the DVD, but because of the DMCA I'm not allowed to use a scene from the movie as a wallpaper on my desktop because in order to do so I'd be circumventing CSS. Ridiculous. They not only want to ensure that they make their money (which is fine), they also want to control what I can do with the product once I purchase it (which is NOT fine). CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Things Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Screw "We The People"... let us all bow down to the mighty Corporations! Yeah, the Dem's are just as guilty as the Repugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 People think that violations of IP only affects those that are already loaded (people like Brad Pitt or Tom Hanks, the top billing guys) but they forget that piracy affects literally THOUSANDS of people. From the guy holding the boom on the movie set, to the guy behind the engineering board during the recording of a new CD, to the guy working as an assistant at a Publishing house, to the guy who takes tickets at the local movie theater...all these people are affected. If Piracy is allowed to go on unchecked, it affects every one of these people. 125613[/snapback] The pirates don't really care. For example, take Centropy, the #1-quality pirate-movie release group around. Before one of their latest releases, a telesync SVCD of The Incredibles which looks & sounds great, they've added footage of the little guys in the movie industry talking about piracy (lifted right from a movie theater preview), seemlessly followed by the Centropy logo "Centropy: A Way Of Life". Total slap in the face to the MPAA, like they're daring the industry to catch them. Those pirates are who they need to be going after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 20, 2004 Author Share Posted November 20, 2004 Those pirates are who they need to be going after. 125662[/snapback] Agreed. And those aren't the people that this bill is targetting. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 PM me for info on Bills DVDs ($1/game + $4 shipping + optional tip) I'm just wondering...is it illegal for you to sell copies of the Bills games even if you are doing it for what it costs you? I'm not against it and this is a great service that you are providing. But in light of this topic, I am just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 20, 2004 Author Share Posted November 20, 2004 I'm just wondering...is it illegal for you to sell copies of the Bills games even if you are doing it for what it costs you? I'm not against it and this is a great service that you are providing. But in light of this topic, I am just curious. 125728[/snapback] I don't think so, although it's tough to say. I'm not making money on it, and it's stuff that's been broadcast over the airwaves (in some city). Technically you're allowed to record those things, and since I'm not selling it for a profit, I don't think it's illegal. Selling it on eBay, on the other hand, I think would be illegal. But I'm not sure, there may be some obscure law somewhere that says it's illegal. That said, I'm not worried about it; the NFL doesn't seem to care about the various DVDs being sold on eBay (for profit), so I doubt they'll care about me giving them to Bills fans for cost. Technically half of the discussions on this board are illegal based on the, "No retrnsmissions, broadcasts, or descriptions of the game without the written consent of the NFL is prohibited." Gotta love the laws. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Fez: A couple of points: your last post says: I'm not in favor of piracy. However, I am in favor of being able to use something I buy the way I want to. With the proposed laws, it'd be illegal for me to record a show, edit out the commericals, and re-record it to a DVD for my own personal use. As the proposed law is written, it's illegal to fast forward through the commericals on a DVD recording (we're not just talking DVRs and VCRs, we're talking pressed DVDs that you buy at the store). Also, why should it be illegal for me to rip a DVD to my own harddrive if I wanted to make a "movie server" in my basement? It currently is, thanks to CSS and the DMCA. I *bought* the DVD, I should be able to take a screenshot from the movie and make it my wallpaper if I want, edit a few scenes from my favorite movie and make some parady changes to them if I want, rip all of my movies and put them on a central server so that I can watch them without the disk if I want. All of those rights are currently taken away from me, and this bill wants to take away even more of my rights. That's not protecting copyright holders, that's giving them absolute control which is NOT what the copyright laws are for. (see the bold type) Your original post contains: * The Family Movie Act exempts from copyright or trademark litigation the skipping of portions of movies — but leaves makers and users of commercial-skipping technology open to lawsuits like the one that bankrupted ReplayTV. I don't think these things line up. In your scenario, you are not making technology to skip commercials, you are simply using it. On your second paragraph I disagree with you. You are not buying a movie when you buy a DVD. You are buying a license. That license may or may not come with restrictions. The very act of purchasing the DVD is your agreement to the terms of the license. If you don't like the terms of the license, don't buy the product. That will speak lourder than any congressman. The license could say you have to watch this movie while dressed in a frilly tutu if that is what the owners of the product want. The same rules apply to CDs and all sorts of software for home and commercial use. Just because someone wants to use a movie/music/development tool in a certain way doesn't mean they should be able to do it. It stands to reason that the owner of a product would want to sell its use to as many willing customers as possible. They should have this right. If more restictive licenses help them achieve this goal, then so be it. BTW, Tivo did a lot more to bankrupt Replay than any lawsuit ever did. Although I don't know as much about it, I tend to agree with you on the WHOIS stuff. The burden of proof should be on the accuser, and if it is hard to find a culprit, then it is hard to find a culprit. With that said, once a culprit is found, I am not against stiff penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 I don't think so, although it's tough to say. I'm not making money on it, and it's stuff that's been broadcast over the airwaves (in some city). Technically you're allowed to record those things, and since I'm not selling it for a profit, I don't think it's illegal. Selling it on eBay, on the other hand, I think would be illegal. But I'm not sure, there may be some obscure law somewhere that says it's illegal. That said, I'm not worried about it; the NFL doesn't seem to care about the various DVDs being sold on eBay (for profit), so I doubt they'll care about me giving them to Bills fans for cost. Technically half of the discussions on this board are illegal based on the, "No retrnsmissions, broadcasts, or descriptions of the game without the written consent of the NFL is prohibited." Gotta love the laws. CW 125740[/snapback] Oh, it's definitely illegal. Write the Commissioner's office & see what they think. I wouldn't worry about it either, though. Like you said, you're not making $$$ on it and you're fairly low-profile about it. Similarly, I'm not worried about anything I d/l from USENET or burn from Netflix cause I don't sell anything + it's very hard (though not impossible) to be traced + I drop about $100 every week on official DVDS... most likely anything I d'l, I'll end up buying later. May not be morally right, but I can live with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 On your second paragraph I disagree with you. You are not buying a movie when you buy a DVD. You are buying a license. That license may or may not come with restrictions. The very act of purchasing the DVD is your agreement to the terms of the license. If you don't like the terms of the license, don't buy the product. That will speak lourder than any congressman. The license could say you have to watch this movie while dressed in a frilly tutu if that is what the owners of the product want. The same rules apply to CDs and all sorts of software for home and commercial use. Just because someone wants to use a movie/music/development tool in a certain way doesn't mean they should be able to do it. It stands to reason that the owner of a product would want to sell its use to as many willing customers as possible. They should have this right. If more restictive licenses help them achieve this goal, then so be it. Well, that may be the legal speak of the transaction, but from a practical standpoint if I buy a dvd or cd, I should be able to do anything that I please with it as long as it is done in the privacy of my home and not for commercial use. I should be able to copy it, edit it, or glue it to the wall as a piece of art. IP should not infringe on MY PRIVACY!! That is the real problem with most of these new laws, the lack of personal privacy. Once we lose our right to privacy it is hard to get it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 20, 2004 Author Share Posted November 20, 2004 On your second paragraph I disagree with you. You are not buying a movie when you buy a DVD. You are buying a license. That license may or may not come with restrictions. The very act of purchasing the DVD is your agreement to the terms of the license. If you don't like the terms of the license, don't buy the product. That will speak lourder than any congressman. The license could say you have to watch this movie while dressed in a frilly tutu if that is what the owners of the product want. The same rules apply to CDs and all sorts of software for home and commercial use. With a DVD/CD, there's no license listed anywhere. With software, the EULA is not visible until you purchase it and open the packaging. How enforcable is that? Well, there have been a few cases where it was NOT enforcable. I've yet to see a case (not saying it hasn't happened) where the EULA has actually held up. So for now, while megacorps want you to BELIEVE that you're only buying a license, there is no legal basis in it as of yet. Therefore, I own the movie until the megacorps pay their money to government to erode those rights even further. To the people reading this thread who think the bill is bogus - I hope that you're filling out the form to send a message to your representatives. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Fez, I hear what you're saying but I think you are missing a couple of key points. The biggest one being "commercial use". You can do whatever you want with your DVD's or CD's once you purchase them so long as you don't repackage, edit, alter, or copy it for COMMERCIAL USE. It's that language that is built into virtually every copyright law. They are not concerned with what I do in my home with my DVD (even if it does violate the license) so long as I am not putting it on display for profit. Look at it this way, as a writer my work is extremely vunerable to copyright infringment on many levels. But let's look at a finished product. I complete a script that sells to Studio A who then turns it around and makes it into a movie. All WGA contracts now have built in clauses for DVD and B.O. residuals for the credited writers (something the guild has fought tooth and nail for). You buy my DVD (giving me my .25 cents on the dollar fee...pretty sweet!) and take it home. I'm cool with it, hey I got my money. And you decide you want to copy it, use screen shots for your wallpaper...again, all cool. No big deal. Then you break out the burner and copy your DVD in case your copy breaks. Now problem. But then you decide to burn a couple DVDs for friends for 5 bucks each. Then we've got problems because you just took 2 people off the market for my product. If that is repeated all over the country we are talking about majoy dollars that are being stolen. The artists or IP owners don't care about you until you cross this line and start doing something for commercial use. However the law has to be written in such a way to best protect the marketplace which means making it all encompassing even though the reality is IP owners won't pursue over 99 percent of the "offenders". But there is even a worse offense (from a writer's standpoint at least). Say you buy your DVD and you break out the photoshop. You start changing scenes, changing the story and characters...again it's no problem since you are doing it for yourself. But then you start showing it to people, maybe even a large amount of people who convince you to sell it...now we have major problems. Since you just took something that was mine and altered it and are now reselling it. I think you are thinking about this in too much of a micro level when the bill is aimed at a macro approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Oh, and for you saying how the MPAA etc need to adapt again to the technology is not fair or realistic. It's not a matter of adapting to the technology now as much as it is preventing theft. When VCRs came out the technology was NEW and they created a new product to make money. This time it isn't new technology it's just new DUPLICATING technology (like Burners etc) and companies can't create a new product from technology that duplicates an existing one. Companies (like Apple) have tried to adapt by setting up networks that cost money (I-Share or whatever it's called) for the consumer to share files (and thus cover the licensing fees). Yet since the technology is so accessible and easliy cracked people continue to get around it. It's the same with DVD Burners now. DVDs allow the MPAA to make oodles of money, but the availabilty of the equipment nowadays makes it so everyone can run their own illegal manufacturing company in their basement if they wanted. The truth is that not everyone does this of course and the MPAA doesn't care about Joe-Schmoe burning 10 DVDs in his basement...what they do care about is the giant piracy outfits that burn 10,000 DVDs a day. That feat simply wasn't possible 10 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 20, 2004 Author Share Posted November 20, 2004 Fez, I hear what you're saying but I think you are missing a couple of key points. The biggest one being "commercial use". You can do whatever you want with your DVD's or CD's once you purchase them so long as you don't repackage, edit, alter, or copy it for COMMERCIAL USE. It's that language that is built into virtually every copyright law. ... I'm cool with it, hey I got my money. And you decide you want to copy it, use screen shots for your wallpaper...again, all cool. No big deal. ... However the law has to be written in such a way to best protect the marketplace which means making it all encompassing even though the reality is IP owners won't pursue over 99 percent of the "offenders". I understand what you're saying, but the law does NOT need to be written in a way that it makes criminals out of 99% of the population. The RIAA is using sweeping nets to fine people for P2P downloads; they don't have to prove anything, even though there are MANY ways to use a P2P network that's not illegal -- downloading non-copyrighted ffiles, downloading MP3s of music that I already own, downloading ISOs of the latest Linux distro etc. But they blanket it and say, "P2P = illegal = suing." They get to completely bypass all of the laws in order to do this as well (such as the "you need proof," "you need to file in the state of the offender," etc.). I don't care if the IP owners won't pursue 99% of the "offenders," I want the definition of "offender" to not include things I do in my own house for myself. The software industry tried making it illegal to make copies of software back in the 80s and lost that battle heavily. Apparantly the MPAA and RIAA aren't losing it because they're paying the government officials a bit more money for their law. Say you buy your DVD and you break out the photoshop. You start changing scenes, changing the story and characters...again it's no problem since you are doing it for yourself. But then you start showing it to people, maybe even a large amount of people who convince you to sell it...now we have major problems. Since you just took something that was mine and altered it and are now reselling it. Technically, depending on how I change it, I'm not (currently) breaking the law. I don't remember the specifics, but you're allowed to take things and change/parady them. For example, Weird Al Yankovich technically does NOT need to get permission from the artists whose songs he parady's. They wrote the music, but because he's changing it, it's legal. Copyright protects what you wrote, but doesn't not protect you from major changes (nor should it; that would be stifling creativity, and tha'ts not what copyright law and patent law was developed for; in fact, it was quite the opposite, we're just bastardizing it nowadays). Now I'm not saying that I can edit one page of your 300 page book and be able to resell it, or alter one scene from your 2 hour movie and be able to resell it. But if they're major changes, it's fair game. I think you are thinking about this in too much of a micro level when the bill is aimed at a macro approach. I am looking at it from a micro level because that's how the law is written. If they write the law on a macro level, that's great; as I said, I have no problem with the studios wanting to protect people from making and selling the 10,000 copies and selling them illegally. Just don't trample my rights in order to protect yours. (as an aside, I think this is the longest thread I've ever read here where people are debating and there's no flames flying around!!! ). (BTW, how was the movie? ) CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 So drafting laws to protect someone's hard work from being stolen before it reaches the marketplace is akin to creating a Police State? In years past items such as written works, music, movies, etc were protected from copywrite infringment because the technology to duplicate (and distribute) the merchandise was so expensive that it made it virtually impossible for the "average joe" to pirate. In those years, the copywrite laws were enough to prevent large scale piracy because the cost of such an enterprise made it easier to track and prosecute. Now the technology has developed so that anyone with a DVD burner and a camcorder can go into a sneak preview and have a bootleg copy of a movie out on the street for sale before the movie even hits the marketplace. The same can be said of music, books, newspaper articles, etc. That is flat out stealing. The laws have to be adjusted to protect the people who make their living off of intelectual property from this new technology. 125592[/snapback] And current laws already have addressed your camcorder-DVD burner issue. What's at stake here is good old simple fair-use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts