TheSzerdi
Regular Member
Two bills currently in congress that will effectively censor the internet and lower the bar for felony conviction for copyright infringement.
Taken from: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...t-why-sopa-protect-ip-are-bad-bad-ideas.shtml
This should NOT be a legal matter. Internet piracy, like petty larceny, is impossible to stamp out and is most easily decreased by offering a better SERVICE. Not by making another law.
This means that YOU could be convicted of a felony and lose your firearm rights.
Example A: Posting a youtube video with a copyrighted song playing in the background. (You may not even have noticed your daughter's radio was so loud.)
Example B: Improperly snipping an article to post on THIS website or improperly citing your source.
Example C: Posting a picture with ANY copyrighted material in it.
Many of these examples could be done unintentionally and YOU could be convicted of a felony with one careless click or copy/paste.
Not only could YOU take the blame for the copyright infringement, but the ENTIRE website could be shut down and/or prosecuted. The website could even be shut down WITHOUT an issued warrant or due process of any kind.
You might want to write your congressman about this one.
An easy listen summary with good analogies: http://youtu.be/JhwuXNv8fJM
Taken from: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...t-why-sopa-protect-ip-are-bad-bad-ideas.shtml
That main issue, we're told over and over again, is "piracy" and specifically "rogue" websites. And, let's be clear: infringement is a problem. But the question is what kind of problem is it? Much of the evidence suggests that it's not an enforcement problem and it's not a legal problem. Decades of evidence from around the globe all show the same thing: making copyright law or enforcement stricter does not work. It does not decrease infringement at all -- and, quite frequently, leads to more infringement. That's because the reason that there's infringement in the first place is that consumers are being under-served. Historically, infringement has never been about "free," but about indicating where the business models have not kept up with the technology.
Thus, the real issue is that this is a business model problem. As we've seen over and over and over again, those who embrace what the internet enables, have found themselves to be much better off than they were before. They're able to build up larger fanbases, and to rely on various new platforms and services to make more money.
And, as we've seen with near perfect consistency, the best way, by far, to decrease infringement is to offer awesome new services that are convenient and useful.
This should NOT be a legal matter. Internet piracy, like petty larceny, is impossible to stamp out and is most easily decreased by offering a better SERVICE. Not by making another law.
Changing what counts as a felony for copyright, without understanding the implications or common usage of technology puts many at risk. This does not apply directly to PIPA, but its companion legislation in the Senate, S.978. Similar provisions are found in SOPA as well, making certain forms of "streaming" a felony. Supporters of these actions insist that they're merely harmonizing criminal and civil copyright laws, since the felony parts of the criminal copyright statute cover reproduction and distribution, but not performance. What they fail to recognize (or admit) is that there's a reason why performance rights were left out, and it's because it's pretty ridiculous to think of a felony performance in normal contexts.
This means that YOU could be convicted of a felony and lose your firearm rights.
Example A: Posting a youtube video with a copyrighted song playing in the background. (You may not even have noticed your daughter's radio was so loud.)
Example B: Improperly snipping an article to post on THIS website or improperly citing your source.
Example C: Posting a picture with ANY copyrighted material in it.
Many of these examples could be done unintentionally and YOU could be convicted of a felony with one careless click or copy/paste.
Broadly expanding secondary liability is a dream for trial lawyers, but will be a disaster for business. There's been a move, associated with these bills to somehow demonize important concepts of safe harbors from secondary liability. The suggestion is that secondary liability somehow "allows" bad activity. Nothing is further from the truth. Illegal activity is still illegal. The point of safe harbors from secondary liability is blaming the party actually doing the action that breaks the law.
Not only could YOU take the blame for the copyright infringement, but the ENTIRE website could be shut down and/or prosecuted. The website could even be shut down WITHOUT an issued warrant or due process of any kind.
You might want to write your congressman about this one.
An easy listen summary with good analogies: http://youtu.be/JhwuXNv8fJM