Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

Well... you can... semi-secretly... it happens all the time, actually... it's just not secret anymore after the deed is done

[Bdthemag]

Illegal Video Game streaming ring anyone?

[Solifuge]

I see the reasoning behind this... the ease of information exchange on the internet really has changed a lot. It leads to a lot of free publicity and awareness for works; without Downfall Parody videos on youtube, it likely would never have been well-known outside of Germany. By the same token, it costs a lot in lost revenue, when people provide such media and freely stream it to others.

However, I don't think the S.978 bill is the way to fix the root of lost revenue. The language is too vague to tackle just freely streaming media that circumvents copyright, and does nothing about the piracy of the actual media.

By the language used in the current bill, I would be a federal offender from my Livestream alone, let alone any media I may have received from others, in order to confirm that I wanted to make a purchase.

Illegal streaming of copyrighted content is defined in the bill as an offense that "consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works" and has a total economic value, either to the copyright holder or the infringer, of at least $2,500."

Despite ways I may be able to benefit from it in the short-term, I do hope we are able to adequately tackle internet piracy, for the sake of the artists and creators who don't end up benefiting from it in the long run. These are tricky waters to navigate, and I'm afraid I can't propose an adequate alternative, but I don't feel that that this is the way to go forward.

[Aklyon]

the ease of information exchange on the internet really has changed a lot.

But the response to change hasn't at all: "crush (or warp to fit our needs) the new technology before we get replaced!"

[Solifuge]

the ease of information exchange on the internet really has changed a lot.

But the response to change hasn't at all: "crush (or warp to fit our needs) the new technology before we get replaced!"

I know I often use allegory to relate aspects of culture to the natural world... but it's not unlike how some competitive adult animals try to attack and kill the young (even their own offspring). On an individual level, the adult wants to survive, and a young upstart means competition both now, and in the future. The adult is also more powerful, having had a lifetime to build strength and experience, though it won't always be in this position if the young are allowed to grow. Without surviving young, however, the species would not continue to survive. As such, it is in the interest of the species as a whole to allow the young to exist and grow, forcing the old to adjust and make room.

It's natural for a business, as an entity, to want to survive and continue; there are people whose living and power rely on the business' continued survival. However, new technology and business needs to be given a chance to grow and prosper, so it can fairly compete, and we as a whole may continue to survive.

One way to move forward in regard to these sort of copyright issues would involve a revision of what we think of as a transaction, regarding electronic media. People share physical books or movies they've purchased with others they know, and eventually will give the book or movie back. I think if media piracy were instead federally regulated, and remade as individual "try before you buy" Shareware/Rental Services (perhaps with a subscription fee, which would be paid to those who contribute their works to the service), allowing people to check out the media for a limited time, and then decide whether they want to purchase it for their continued enjoyment. This would preserve the free advertising effect of media streaming, while also making sure the creators aren't losing revenue for their works.

[SalmonGod]

I just don't think capitalism and artistry are very compatible, and the commodification of culture degrades its true value.

[Draco18s]

I just don't think capitalism and artistry are very compatible, and the commodification of culture degrades its true value.

They are most certainly not.  Mickey Mouse was supposed to have entered the public domain twice now.  The reason it hasn't is that Disney¹ has lobbied long and hard to extend the duration of copyright law.  It used to be 25 years from publication (if I am remembering my history correctly), which was long enough for the creator (or his decedents) to make a living from it.  Then it was 25 years after the death of the author.

Now it's 70 years after the death of the author or 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter if the work was created by a corporation.

70 years!

The point of copyright was the point at which it has been around long enough to have entered popular culture and the creator is no longer receiving (much) monetary benefit for it, then it moves to the public domain to enhance and better culture!

At 70 (or 120 years) it doesn't enter public domain until (roughly) the time when those people who saw it when it was new are nearly dead.  At that point the creation is so old that it's moved out of popular culture.

I mean, seriously:



¹ I'm not joking about this either.  The most recent extension is called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act or pejoratively as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Passed in 1998 and extended copyright for another 20 years.

[Itnetlolor]

Here's something I don't get about this bill's conception: The fact it's even an idea leads me to believe that there are some serious denial and insecurity issues with developers, directors, and producers of media content, be it games, music, or movies/videos.

If you can't accept (any) public opinion and/or better yourself (and the content involved) from it, and instead want content control when it comes to reviews and public opinion and such (as I've been seeing has come up quite a bit in these conversations), then you're in one serious level of denial and/or insecurity regarding your product(s)/compan(y/ies), and there's no way around that, because for any politician/CEO/company and etc. that supports this bill in regards to any media, well, this is a public display of that insecurity and denial. Have fun with the public opinion with that on your head afterwards.

What ever happened to common sense? Is that a rare commodity these days?


Let's not forget that if it does get passed, there are too many people, including a number of the politicians themselves, that would have to be imprisoned as well. Brilliant, they'll fall right into their own trap due to the human element.

[Neonivek]

The only reason I support re-entering Mickey Mouse is that they are still doing things with him... still making new shows.

However what is being done, that I find evil, is that there are essentially companies out there that make money simply off of copyrighting things, especially old things, and trying to swoop in with legal battles when people stumble upon it.

[Draco18s]

The only reason I support re-entering Mickey Mouse is that they are still doing things with him... still making new shows.

Which is completely and utterly irrelevant.  The two (or more) works have different creation and publication dates and are therefor subject to different copyrights.

there are essentially companies out there that make money simply off of copyrighting things, especially old things, and trying to swoop in with legal battles when people stumble upon it.

And this doesn't even make sense.  You can't go and find something old and "place a copyright" on it.

[Willfor]

there are essentially companies out there that make money simply off of copyrighting things, especially old things, and trying to swoop in with legal battles when people stumble upon it.

And this doesn't even make sense.  You can't go and find something old and "place a copyright" on it.

I'm going to give Neonivek the most extreme benefit of the doubt, and say that he meant that companies license the intellectual property from the estate of author/creator, and rigorously defend their purchased right. It makes slightly more sense.

[Virex]

Let's not forget that if it does get passed, there are too many people, including a number of the politicians themselves, that would have to be imprisoned as well. Brilliant, they'll fall right into their own trap due to the human element.

Wait, what politician has made more then 5.000 dollars using other people's copyrighted works? Besides, when did anyone ever make over 5.000 dollars with reviews? I'd like to know because I may need to switch jobs. 5K for 10 reviews is pretty easy cash if you ask me.

[Itnetlolor]

Let's not forget that if it does get passed, there are too many people, including a number of the politicians themselves, that would have to be imprisoned as well. Brilliant, they'll fall right into their own trap due to the human element.

Wait, what politician has made more then 5.000 dollars using other people's copyrighted works? Besides, when did anyone ever make over 5.000 dollars with reviews? I'd like to know because I may need to switch jobs. 5K for 10 reviews is pretty easy cash if you ask me.

I think certain non-profit oriented stuff can count. Like using songs and other media to get them into office, elected to a higher position in office, or something. I mean, even if it's non-profit at face value, once you get into an (better) official position, you just net yourself a hefty income afterward (income from your new position in office, provided you win the votes), which I find rather stealthy as a way to abuse obtaining personal financial gain at a political level, while looking like you don't need the profit; the lack of paid rights is a money saver, depending on the material to be used (which applies to anything). Rights get pricey. The association of copyright material without pay for permissions (consider some politicians cheap in this regard in this example), and their apparently getting away with it seems a bit shady.

Kinda makes you wonder about the expense bills for the political ads that air on TV and/or radio for these guys sometimes, especially if you   recognize a tune or something copyrighted included. Is there a purchase of rights to use said material in their campaign bills/invoice somewhere? If not, and it gets noticed, they're in for some fun; especially if they won their new position (Better positions, better payment; cut costs, and someone notices... you know the rest).

I would stay silent otherwise if they did go through the process of purchasing the rights to use the material however (as much as I don't give a crap anyway). I suppose the fact that eyes cannot be everywhere at once, which is also a bit of a major flaw in the bill in general as well, is often exploited. This would definitely be a common thought no matter who thinks it.

In any which case, I'll just leave this issue to the wind. It'll probably die off for being such a bad idea (and countless complaints from the public; and common sense briefly touches the politicians) anyway.

[Draco18s]

Let's not forget that if it does get passed, there are too many people, including a number of the politicians themselves, that would have to be imprisoned as well. Brilliant, they'll fall right into their own trap due to the human element.

Wait, what politician has made more then 5.000 dollars using other people's copyrighted works?

I don't know about the cash value, but it wouldn't be the first time a politician has been sued for copyright infringement.

[SalmonGod]

I just don't think capitalism and artistry are very compatible, and the commodification of culture degrades its true value.

Mickey Mouse

While that's interesting, I was referring to a bunch of other things.  For instance, in order to support themselves, artists need to put out work consistently, whether they are inspired to make something of originality/quality or not.  Thus, our culture is flooded with garbage that exists for no other reason than to maintain an artist's livelihood.  Artists are also required to maintain legal ownership of the cultural artifacts that they generate (out of livelihood concerns), which prevents them from truly becoming culture.  Culture is supposed to be something owned and processed by the entire public as a form of collective identity and thought processing, allowing us to understand and grow together.  It gets 10x worse when you factor in the entire industry that builds up around artistic pursuits and starts claiming ownership of artists and control over their work, allowing relative handfuls of individuals to essentially force a culture upon us, rather than culture arising out of the present minds of the people.