Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

That you think I look silly is not my problem.

I posted in this thread ,more in response to people who think they should be entitled to infringe on other people's property ,and not so much about the concept of copyright and public domain and other such things.So what whatever means or is defined as ,does nothing to help or hinder what I am primarily adressing,which is some people's perceived right to break the law.

So you have repeatedly said copyrights should be protcted.You also initially implied that 'fatcats' grossing millions or billions,are somehow different ,in this regard,from some small one man operation,and as such,their right to protection might/should be different.You said it,not me.

Since I am uninformed,please explain to me what you mean by 'thievery by corporations' and better yet,show me where in this thread,or in any of my posts in any othr thread,have I supported what you call , 'thievery'.

If nothing, I am sure that I have been consistent in pointing out that some people seem to support using people's property without permission,but it is I who am being accused of supporting thievery.And when you refer to ,"take what belongs to everybody" ,what are you talking about,and how does it belong to everybody?

You say things have changed in the past few years,dramatically.What has remained constant though,is people who feel that they should not be constrained by the law,from doing what they want to do ,wth what belongs to others.

 

That's exactly why I pointed out the fact that you should learn the relationship between copyright law and public domain. The link I gave - several times - is an unbiased, informative source explaining why the relationship between copyright, trademarking and patents and the public domain has, over a very short period of time, become extremely imbalanced, and why it hurts us.

http://www.thepublicdomain.org/

I wholly understand people thinking "I created it, it should be mine forever. People should pay to enjoy my creation forever." In an individual sense, that's understandable.

I'm also not against perpetual copyright as long as it's PAID for by the creator of the work. If I create a work, and paid a perpetual copyright license, then I could expect that work to be protected...forever.

However...that's not how it's being done.

Debate is good. That's also what makes this country great. So...accept my apologies for the perceived insults. That's just stylistic. The knee-jerk first response to your post was exactly that. Quick-tempered, I am.

I do not agree with piracy, or theft of intellectual property while it's under protection. That also is the "deal" made in the relationship between copyright and public domain. I'm starting to see that the concepts we've been arguing over focus on different points. The "corporate fatcats" statement was never about anti-profit, it was about anti-fascism...which, sad to say, this country is moving toward in hi-speed fashion. Saddest part is that it's doing so relatively unnoticed...and that one of the major battlefields at present just so happens to be copyright, trademarking and patents.

 

Some of what I said,like my constantly bringing up your initial response ,and some sarcasm,was just a deliberate attempt to rile you up, so no problem.I do see your point. My point however,has to do with a notion by some that certain things should be free to them.One such poster in this thread has displayed that mentality. Ideas like if you steal something for personal use,it is theft,but if you profit from the theft it is capitalism ,as one poster suggested, or that it might be okay to steal something as long as you can't afford it, are what I have a problem with.

 

I do pay for my copyrights, I have to send the government $35 for each copyright package I send to them.

Mark

 

And for $35 your copyright should last forever?

 

Yes, that is what the law states...................so, why not? Now that I'm paying for the copyright, the price is to low? So, what should it cost me to protect my work from thieves and cheats?

Mark

 

1 billion dollars

 

In the United Sates, perpetual copyright is prohibited by its Constitution, which provides that copyright is "for limited times". However, it does not specify how long that term can be, and Congress has successively been retroactively extending the terms of any copyrights still in force.


One of the ways the public is being screwed. Way to get around the Constitution and onward to fascism!

You're paying for copyright registration, not copyright. And $35.00 would be MUCH too low for perpetual copyright.

There's a reason perpetual copyright is prohibited by the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, who penned the Constitution, was an innovator himself. He recognized and understood how unreasonable copyright would stifle creativity and invention.

Original copyright, which was 28 years...renewable by another 28 years for a total of 56 years...is fair enough before works are moved to the public domain. (Although...I think perpetual copyright licensing should be allowed. It would provide additional income and revenue and also allow what authors/inventors/creators want, while also allowing funding to protect those works that are perpetually copyrighted.)

If someone can't make reasonable profit in 56 years, something is wrong. The corporations have pushed reasonable copyright into the dirt. And it's the public that suffers. (Read public domain).

Lots more going on here than your more than unlikely profit after 56 years. Which is now death of the author (or creator of the work) plus 70 years, I might add. Along with the fact that copyright is now passive, and does not need to be renewed. People are just too blinded by greed and ignorance ( ignorance meaning not knowing) to raise their heads up out of the sand.

Ask yourself a question. Why are all those old silver-nitrate movies, which contain much of the culture of the early 20th century onward, being left to disintegrate into dust? If you don't know...you need to learn much more about copyright and the new laws. (Spitting the disgust out of my mouth while I say that.)

 

Missed my point, however, I do see you're essentially in agreement.

The works can't be destroyed because they're under copyright vis-a-vis copyright extension. That's the only way that their life can be prolonged. AND They can't be restored, because that is copyright infringement. Let's take this argument in another direction. How dangerous, really, are the new laws, and what derives from them?


President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama over the last several years have masterminded an international piracy pact called ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). The U.S. leaders long pushed the international community to keep the treaty secret till its enactment, but now at last it's out in the open for public review.

In the draft version, gone are some startling provisions (such as warrantless border searches of petty items like iPods for suspected infringed materials. With the border guards probably in jack-boots.) But in their place are equally alarming measures such as the creation of a new class of intellectual property crime called "imminent infringement" -- this by definition is basically thought crime (the idea here is to prosecute people who might be getting ready to infringe with a crime).

This allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched "torrent daft punk"). This is among the first official "thought crime" provisions to be proposed by the U.S. government."

Essentially, if you ever do a search for music or movies on Google with the keyword "torrent" as part of your query, you can be found liable of a civil offense, even if you don't actually download any pirated material. Yeah, yeah, why would anybody search for "torrent daft punk" if they did not have the intention of downloading it illegally. Who knows, but that is not the point. The point is that no crime was ever actually committed. Period.

The fact that you can be charged with a crime for simply thinking of doing something, in other words a "thought crime" a la George Orwell's book 1984 and the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report, is downright scary. We are certainly on the edge of a slippery slope if this provision goes into effect.



Or how about this little tidbit? This was removed, but how long before it comes back? And the added "imminent infringement" is even worse.

"the draft agreement would empower security officials at airports and other international borders to conduct random ex officio searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or "ripped" music and movies. Travelers with infringing content would be subject to a fine and may have their devices confiscated or destroyed."

Now...what about your private files? These guys were going to be able to search all your files for these "illegal" articles...whether or not you have them. That will be a tasty treat for those of us that cross the borders on a regular basis.

If all this doesn't scare you...nothing will. All in the name of protecting intellectual property. Where's the balance in all this? The loss of our freedom versus intellectual property law?



This is fact. Not George Orwell. Bye-bye 1st amendment.