Quote:
Originally Posted by stocktrader23
And everyone should be willing to help but shortsightedness and ignorance run rampant.
|
The short sightedness was on the part of big websites that did not seek any kind of
agreement whatsoever with content creators. Legit businesses have paid licensing
fees to copyright holders for a long time and have been very profitable.
Being absolutely greedy and stubborn about paying even the smallest fee forced
a iron hand to be played.
The copyright law was clear and people clearly decided not to give a fuck.
All these sites had to do was work with the industries to make a affordable agreement
to distribute the material. It worked for radio, television, book stores, night clubs,
retail stores, movie rentals.......it worked for everybody except assholes on the internet.
It doesn't matter if this bill is not passed because there will simply
be another one down the road that will pass.
Money is involved and that is the end of all other factors because the money is going
to be gotten one way or another.
The government has a stake in this in the terms of increased tax revenue from the
companies they protect. The government is going after the money.
Free speech and fair use arguments against this bill are complete bullshit as the
bill is explicit in targeting sites who's main purpose is to pirate.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...TolcMn:e29080:
Quote:
SEC. 103. MARKET-BASED SYSTEM TO PROTECT U.S. CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT U.S. FUNDING OF SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.
(a) Definitions- In this section:
(1) DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY- An `Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property' if--
(A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and
(B) either--
(i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates--
(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or
(ii) the operator of the U.S.-directed site--
(I) is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(II) operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.
(2) QUALIFYING PLAINTIFF- The term `qualifying plaintiff' means, with respect to a particular Internet site or portion thereof, a holder of an intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in paragraph (1) occurring on that Internet site or portion thereof.
(b) Denying U.S. Financial Support of Sites Dedicated to Theft of U.S. Property-
................
|
Why are big names opposed to the bill? Ah, because the google images are afraid.
Didn't the goog want to copy all books and put them online at one time?
Yeah, censorship my ass. Just fucking pay up like everybody else has done for a century.