SOPA Bill Author has Copyright Infringement Issues of his Own
 

That's wonderful

There's a big difference between someone using a random image(maybe ignorantly) vs. wholesale theft and re-distribution of the content of entire websites.

I know its too much to ask for, but maybe(in a perfect world) SOPA will allow the freedoms that enable a 12 year old girl with youtube channel to have Katy Perry music in her stupid video, but shut down the movie/music piracy business.

He just wants to be saved from himself, isn't that bad??

An that's the problem with SOPA. It won't just make thing less easy for pirates, it will cause a lot of problems for everybody else. SOPA is like handing out thermonuclear explosive devices to anyone who has or claims to have a rodent problem in his backyard.

Way too much. The purpose of the bill is to return complete control of distribution of any and all information to the rich and powerful.

And do you think its any different for the Politicians that are against prostitution? Or against porn??

So if I make my own product and distribute it, then I can be shut down because I'm not rich and powerful? So you have a problem with SOPA because it will keep any random person from not being able to distribute other people's creative stuff? I'm not trying to say I know what you're all about, but clarify for me.

No. The problem is that people like you will not read SOPA and see that it is only
talking about "Foreign Sites Dedicated To Theft".

SOPA is a precision bomb taking out a rodent nest.

The only reason politics works is because people don't read.
You've bought into a big lie and won't even try to read the SOPA bill.

that's how it should be. never the less, I'de be ok with a complete internet shutdown, before letting the pirates continue care free.

See here's the deal :

You could have just that and it would only take a little effort by youtube.

1 - youtube would have a place on the upload page to list the music in the video

2 - youtube would then auto generate a "cue sheet" for that video

3 - youtube would then send a file with the cue sheets to ASCAP and BMI

4 - youtube would then pay a fee to ASCAP or BMI just like every radio and TV station
in the world.


END of problem.


But no........the internet is somehow different and nobody has to pay and that's
why SOPA is trying to cut the shit off at the root. The internet has produced
arrogant jackasses that think the law doesn't apply to them so this is the result.
If people can't obey the current law then the government will make new law.
DUH!!!

megaupload is planning something like that.

That's the way to do it and be 100% legal.

If everybody did that then the fees would be really low because of the volume and
there would never have been any talk about SOPA.

If SOPA works the way its promoters are claiming, then I stand to gain quite a bit, since I have accumulated terrabytes of licensed content to fill my legal tubes with and won't have to compete with thieves giving away stolen stuff for free.

But I don't believe it will work that way. Google is already claiming that more than half of the DMCA takedown notices it received last year were competitors trying to gimp each other. So the DMCA, lax as it is is already being abused. Megaupload paid a bunch of artists to endorse them and the RIAA already used its weight to remove legal content from Youtube.

These guys are not playing fair now, and we want to give them bigger guns? No thank you.

Do you think it hasnt crossed anyone's mind to use this kind of legislation to silence political dissent? Or to keep police brutality videos from circulating?

Safeguarding Liberty is more important to me than safeguarding IP, even though IP is my bread and butter.

industry sure has changed thats for sure. giving away tbs lol

since they changed it now only go after foreign websites i can't see it helping porn webmasters and producers in anyway, seems like the bill was made to help big pharma and corps who get their physical goods bootlegged.

It's kind of backwards the way things work, at this low end of the spectrum. When someone is using music in a video, and not trying to turn a profit from it on a mass scale -- why does the copyright holder need a payment? If anything, they should be glad that their work has been seen by someone, and could send paying customers to their product.

It's kind of like the nonsense of having to pay for a TShirt that has a giant Nike logo on the front. Shouldn't they be paying me for wearing their logo all over the place?

But distributing copies of movies, games and music doesn't fall into this free advertising argument -- maybe it does to a certain degree -- but you have to look at it basically as taking away potential customers. That's what should be stopped, unless the artist CHOOSES to go that route, like Radiohead or Louie CK.

Where does it say he is giving 100% of his away for free?

Now that's where you become arrogant and start to act like the artist is indebted to
you. Trust me, it's bullshit. People pay the artist because without them our world would
be boring as hell. People turn on the free TV today and have a hard time realizing
what it took to make that happen and therefore "take it for granite". It took money to
make free TV happen and that's why you have to watch the commercials.

Get over yourself, we don't need you, we need the artist and creators.


It's nonsense in the same way that paying for pussy in nonsense.
If a MoFo is willing to pay, then charge them!!

And once again you dive into arrogance; as if anyone is fucking looking at you "all over the place" to even read a logo on your shirt. :1orglaugh

It sure doesn't because the movie/game/music is the entire product and not a sample.
Neither are destroyed once used, thus requiring the purchase of another, as with food.
"Hey, here's a free burger because you will be hungry again tomorrow and buy a burger".
But that doesn't work with the movie/game/music, they are all reusable tomorrow again
for free.

Yes.

Remember those pornpolice threads a couple of weeks ago? A program owner hired an IP rights enforcement agency to protect their IP rights. That 'agency' then collected urls of pages that violated those rights and reported them to Google (under the DMCA). Google then removed those urls from its SERPs resulting in a drop in traffic for those pages. As it later turned out, some of those sites that were reported to Google were sites that belonged to affiliates of that program (and in no way violated the program owner's rights) and even to the program owner himself.

And that was only DMCA. SOPA grants even more powers to those who CLAIM to be the IP owner or CLAIM to be an agent for the IP owner.

This is not aimed at you, but I find the shortsightedness of those who at the same time fail to see the potential problems with SOPA and applaud it simply because it is called "Stop Online Piracy Act" worrisome. To be honest, it reminds me of 1984. In the book, the organization that was responsible for the government's propaganda efforts was called the Ministry of Truth.

Why do they call this bill the "Stop Online Piracy Act"? So they can accuse their opponents of being pirates or supporters of piracy. (Same reason the Patriot Act was called the Patriot Act so they could accuse their opponents of being unpatriotic.). It's politics 101 and yet so many on GFY still fall for it.

Last year, I took an IP course (8 week evening course at the local university). The class was quite a diverse group; university and college students, journalists, bloggers, documentary makers, entrepreneurs, a political activist/organizer, designers,...
Guess who was most worried about the way IP legislation is heading? The content producers. The film makers, documentary makers, the journalists and bloggers. Want to interview someone in a pub where there's music playing, a big logo of company XYZ in the background and ask questions about how company ABC produces a product DEF that contains a certain defect? Good luck.

So google already can remove sites with impunity, but somehow SOPA is going to
ruin the internet.

:1orglaugh

SOPA take downs require an "action" by the Attorney General and/or court order bro!!!

Please stop this bullshit about someone emailing google under SOPA to take down a
web site. :1orglaugh

This argument is the Obama birth certificate mentality all over again.
You just can't hear the truth, you rather hear the lie.

Read the law :

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112hr3261

If they read the law, they might not have anything to scare them.

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1052973

blackmonsters, you should quit blaming your income on piracy and get back to work. There is no excuse for a programmer that knows his shit to be whoring out work for $300 per week and your love affair over this pathetic bill is unhealthy.

Of course there is, but SOPA doesn't see that the way it is currently written. That is why this is so delicious.

And why any intelligent person objects to the bill so vehemently.

except that non commercial covers is covered by fair use. other than your solution is an attempt to claw back establish fair use rights there nothing wrong with it

:error:error

So, you want to shut down the most important creation of all time because you think that will curtail piracy?

Possibly the funniest thing I've read

Thanks for the giggle.

Quit whoring your ass out for attention. :1orglaugh

Attacking me about income is all you can do because the actual subject of debate is over your head.

Can you please post the section of the bill that shows us what you claim?

"most important creation of all time " Oh please. Life did exist 20 years ago and although watching a cat play a piano is amusing, life would go on without it.

When SOPA passes I will be closing down Youtube, google and twitter just for the hell of it.

Don't wait up for the reply. Except some links to thread on Pirate Bay. :1orglaugh

SOPA or something like it is coming. Plan your business around the future, not the past. Yes I said that. :winkwink:

Of course if your hate for SOPA comes from benefiting privately from it, being a downloader. Then expect that to change as well.

Dude had to take handouts on GFY to pay his internet bill. He's got to have something to blame it on if he can't take the blame himself. :1orglaugh

The great thing about GFY is you get so many opposing views. Some sensible and some so far out there, they make you think HMMMMMMMMMMMMM???

Apart from my posts where everyone is united that I never was and never will be right, make sense, have a clue, a cent or a brain. LOL

Fuckin' a right. :thumbsup

But of course he won't do that, because he already knows this case is not covered by SOPA. It would show what SOPA is about, and not about, which again would strenghten Smiths cause.

it makes no sense, to exempt american sites from the law. what does that mean? that pirate bay can relocate to america & get exempted from SOPA? or do our copyright laws cover for the exemption?

frankly i have not seen the so called managers amendment, & the way opponents are spinning all kinds of fear (just like neo cons in 2002) i don't know what to believe about this law. All i know is if MC hammer & gideongallery are opposed, i should probably like it.

I don't take anything for granite. I might take it for quartz or marble, but not granite.

I'm artist myself, so I know what you're talking about. I don't look at things from the perspective of someone that just consumes and doesn't create anything. I have things in my pipeline now that I'm hoping won't be ripped and rampantly given away for free by every kid with an internet connection.

I'm just saying there's two ends of the spectrum. Wearing a logo on a shirt, or having a song in some harmless Youtube video should be something an artist can be happy to have running wild out there. It creates awareness of their product. I was saying there's a huge difference between that, and making a business from, and selling someone else's work -- or just giving it away because you're some kind of internet Robin Hood who thinks he's smashing paradigms and sticking it to the man -- when in actuality he's hurting the artist.

All I'm saying is that there nuances to the argument. It can't just be black and white.

It's nowhere near over my head and that is obvious to anyone that isn't trolling. Also, I wasn't attacking you. I just see you here complaining about this shit day in and day out then also complaining about being broke. If you can program at 10% of what you claim then there is no reason you should ever not be able to come up with $300. There are Indian PHP developers that make more than hat per week and I can barely communicate with them.

The sad part is that if you weren't such a hardheaded fuck I would have contacted you long ago about working on some things. I always need programming help and $300 per week is cheaper than good outsourced labor.

Seriously man, if you are that broke you need to go figure your shit out. Stop worrying about SOPA and go make some damn money.