More attempts to put YOU in jail and control the internet.

[Prometheus]

Did you post a video of you child online doing karaoke of a copyrighted song? GO TO JAIL YOU THIEF!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IevBHt6IKX8[/ame]

URGENT: Congress Wants To Make Streaming A Felony | Demand Progress

As if congress doesn't have enough to worry about, they want to throw you and your kids in jail.

Control, that's what they want.

 

[RockofStrength]

Wouldn't that start cutting into Google's turf? I thought people had learned that you don't screw with Google's revenue streams.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Did you post a video of you child online doing karaoke of a copyrighted song? GO TO JAIL YOU THIEF!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IevBHt6IKX8

URGENT: Congress Wants To Make Streaming A Felony | Demand Progress

As if congress doesn't have enough to worry about, they want to throw you and your kids in jail.

Control, that's what they want.

Yeah that video isn't biased at all lol. I mean basically what we are talking about is stealing someones intellectual property and using it for your own profit.

Go to 47 seconds into the video, listen and read the text she says.

It says something to the effect of this bill makes it illegal to perform copyrighted material in a public place for a profit.

So what is wrong with that? You want it to be ok to profit from stealing?


Then they go onto say that you have 9 free passes of stealing someones intellectual property within 180 days. You also have a minimum of $2,500 before this law takes into effect.

If you are making thousands of dollars, you are aware of what you are doing. That is certainly more than just posting a lip synching video of your kid on facebook. To insinuate this law was devised to put parents and kids in jail from posting a simple video on youtube is ludicrous.

What it says is, don't try to profit from posting up videos that use copyrighted material without paying those whose material you are using. But feel free to do it 9 times every 180 days as long as you are making less than $2,500.


This is no different than stealing someones drag racing car, taking it Muncie, winning the races that night, taking the car back, but keeping the winnings and not sharing a penny with the guys who car it was. I mean he wasn't hurt right? You didn't wreck his car right? So whats the harm?

 

[cosermann]

The MPAA and RIAA have powerful lobby influence and lots of money.

I like Weird Al's way of putting it in perspective.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGM8PT1eAvY&ob=av3e[/ame]

 

[jsgolfman]

Yeah that video isn't biased at all lol. I mean basically what we are talking about is stealing someones intellectual property and using it for your own profit.

Go to 47 seconds into the video, listen and read the text she says.

It says something to the effect of this bill makes it illegal to perform copyrighted material in a public place for a profit.

So what is wrong with that? You want it to be ok to profit from stealing?


Then they go onto say that you have 9 free passes of stealing someones intellectual property within 180 days. You also have a minimum of $2,500 before this law takes into effect.

If you are making thousands of dollars, you are aware of what you are doing. That is certainly more than just posting a lip synching video of your kid on facebook. To insinuate this law was devised to put parents and kids in jail from posting a simple video on youtube is ludicrous.

What it says is, don't try to profit from posting up videos that use copyrighted material without paying those whose material you are using. But feel free to do it 9 times every 180 days as long as you are making less than $2,500.


This is no different than stealing someones drag racing car, taking it Muncie, winning the races that night, taking the car back, but keeping the winnings and not sharing a penny with the guys who car it was. I mean he wasn't hurt right? You didn't wreck his car right? So whats the harm?

Can you seriously not see the difference between the two? You don't see the difference between claiming ownership to an idea or a grouping of words and melodies and a car? Have you lost the use of the idea or the song, if not how can you claim theft? Are you claiming loss of anticipated income? How do you derive that income loss?

Please, read the material in the link I provide:

http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Can you seriously not see the difference between the two? You don't see the difference between claiming ownership to an idea or a grouping of words and melodies and a car? Have you lost the use of the idea or the song, if not how can you claim theft? Are you claiming loss of anticipated income? How do you derive that income loss?

Please, read the material in the link I provide:

http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

Honestly man, there is no difference. Both are property, its just seen as ok to steal one of them because its on the internet and you cannot see those who you steal from. I dont have the time and really dont care to read a 73 page pdf. I have to get back to napster...

But seriously in either case, you are taking something that someone made and had copyrighted. Then using that for your own profit without giving anything to those who actually made it.

How is that ok?

That first video is trying to sway this towards the mom and her cute kid going to jail for posting a video online. Well unless they are profiting that is not a concern now is it.

 

[RockofStrength]

Honestly man, there is no difference. Both are property, its just seen as ok to steal one of them because its on the internet and you cannot see those who you steal from. I dont have the time and really dont care to read a 73 page pdf. I have to get back to napster...

But seriously in either case, you are taking something that someone made and had copyrighted. Then using that for your own profit without giving anything to those who actually made it.

How is that ok?

That first video is trying to sway this towards the mom and her cute kid going to jail for posting a video online. Well unless they are profiting that is not a concern now is it.

Except that the RIAA, among others, have proven that they honestly do not want copyrighted music, videos etc playable at all, for profit or no. The issue is not really whether you make money off of their stuff, but that they perceive a loss of income because people could listen to their song for free while watching some kid lip-sync.

 

[jsgolfman]

Honestly man, there is no difference. Both are property, its just seen as ok to steal one of them because its on the internet and you cannot see those who you steal from. I dont have the time and really dont care to read a 73 page pdf. I have to get back to napster...

But seriously in either case, you are taking something that someone made and had copyrighted. Then using that for your own profit without giving anything to those who actually made it.

How is that ok?

That first video is trying to sway this towards the mom and her cute kid going to jail for posting a video online. Well unless they are profiting that is not a concern now is it.

If you can't see there is a difference and aren't willing to educate yourself, then I say good day.

 

[jsharmon7]

Did anyone research this beyond watching that slanted video? This isn't new, it's simply an amendment to a law that is already in effect. It's elevating the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony, as in it was already illegal before this. People have been doing this stuff for years with no repercussions, so why would any of that change now? The target of this law is to keep people from profiting off the work and creativity of others. If I record myself singing the songs of a popular singer and make a bunch of money selling the CD's, that would be wrong. If I were to do a review of something nutnfancy reviewed, and reread the transcript of his review word-for-word in order to get advertising money, that would be wrong. What is the difference? Here is some info straight from the horse's mouth about the intent of this bill:

Setting the record straight on the Protect IP Act | Blog | U.S. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware

Or, we could just keep the words of our kindergarten teacher in mind: "If it's not yours, don't touch it."

 

[Prometheus]

That first video is trying to sway this towards the mom and her cute kid going to jail for posting a video online. Well unless they are profiting that is not a concern now is it.

Google adsense for example. Every video you see where that 'adsense' pops up means the people who has that channel just made some money. click it and they make even more.

The definition of "profit" is exceptionally broad as well.

Let's say you have a youtube channel and you make scrapbooks. You make a lot of money from adsense on those videos. Lets say you also post some videos of your kid on there singing. Ta-da, the income derived from that 'venue' means even if adsense didn't display in the vids of the lipsyncing, the driven traffic contributed to it.

Welcome to a 5 year felony!

Pirating and distributing a clean copy of a song (for example) and having some young kid belt out "Just beat" are two TOTALLY different animals. The first IS copyright infringement. The second is in no way wrong or immoral, or currently a violation of the law.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'd just like to note that this is another "felony" that would make a person ineligible to lawfully own firearms to defend themselves against the real predators who might wish to do them harm.

That is all.

 

[ultraspec]

Is the intrusiveness ever going to stop? Why dont the damn govn worry about fixing the economy and current economic policies rather than removing someone from society for almost no reason

 

[ruger17hmr]

Is the intrusiveness ever going to stop? Why dont the damn govn worry about fixing the economy and current economic policies rather than removing someone from society for almost no reason

It is a sign that US Gov't has gotten too big and bloated for its own good.

It could very well mean that the special interests groups working for the music industries are working really hard.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

If you can't see there is a difference and aren't willing to educate yourself, then I say good day.

U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 6

The Congress shall have Power.....To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

The constitution disagrees with you. The right of useful arts is protected. Not saying it should be a felony, but intellectual property is protected like it or not.