Piracy Laws

N

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Forum Sponsor
I'm not sure if I've missed anything but what's with the proposed piracy law from the USA?

The concept is valid but where does it stop?

If someone invests $10 million hiring programmers etc to write a new piece of software and the first customer that buys one runs off a few thousand and sells them at $10 a pop the investor goes belly up. There is no incentive for anyone to improve the world. Understood.

However as I understand it, the USA wants to be able to shut down or penalize Wikipedia etc or even GTAM, if someone posts a picture clipped from a copywritten site. Using the same logic, the gun manufacturers should be tried for murder every time someone gets killed by a gun. The auto makers should be liable for all traffic collisions.

Where does the protection of a copywrite, intellectual properties etc end?

Getting closer to home, I was admiring an original oil painting at a bike show a few years back and talking to the artist. The painting was of a scene at a motorcycle dealership in a rural setting. She mentioned it was a real place but she had not put the Harley-Davidson sign on the building due to concerns over copywrite laws. This was a one off, hand painted, work of art, not a bunch of made in China belt buckles. The artist was, I believe Mrs. Gummiente.

Could I be arrested for whistling while I work if I hadn't paid a royalty?

Is it legal to sell second hand books?
 
It doesn't end until people go back to paying thousands of dollars for entertainment like pre-y2k. Or until lobbying government and back room deals become illegal.

You're right, what incentive do creators have if they can't put food on the table? The better question is how can creators make it more convenient/cheaper for people to get access to their products/service through the internet? Think iTunes, Netflix, Steam....these business models have proved to be successful. The companies pushing for these laws don't spend on innovating, they lobby instead.
 
The handgun scenario is a real stretch; the issue surrounding the whole SOPA saga is of intellectual property and copyrights, not weapons related offenses. As for my wife's "concerns" about that particular piece of artwork, the full story is that she contacted Harley midway through the creation of the painting (which, btw, is acrylic on canvas not oil on canvas) at my suggestion. She was told in clear terms that any unauthourised use of the HD logo in any genre of artwork would have legal implications. HD only authourises a select few artists, such as David Uhl and Scott Jacobs, to create and sell artwork with the HD logo. Of course, HD gets their cut from the proceeds of all sales and that's what it's all about.
 
too much time spent refining piracy laws than proper ways in delivering the content...i torrent because i can type in a show that i like to watch and have the episode downloaded in minutes, i don't have to go to 7 different websites and filter through layers of crap to watch a show...i go through grooveshark looking for music artists because i find what i want on there...i would prefer to stream content instead of downloading, but because canada has the highest cost for bandwidth, i have to be more mindful...one day we'll get there...
 
Ask the Penguinistas about all this.. If I take a picture, it's mine. You can't use it without my permission. If you like the picture, go take your own. If I allow you to use the picture, so be it. Maybe I charge you to use the picture. It's not that difficult to understand. People who want things for free or are unwilling to muster up enough courtesy to even ask will try to muddy the water by saying "Well, I'm going to use it anyway, and you can't stop me.." and that's fine. Nevertheless, you're using something without permission. At least admit you're breaking the law. They don't feel the same way when I try to use their pool without their permission..
 
I have several notes to make on this issue:

1) The biggest issue with this law is that private corporations will be able to shut down sites they don't like, without any oversight. Just an accusation of piracy or linking to pirated content or liking to a site that may link to pirated content can have your site shut down by a private industry group

2) Our fair use rights have been eroded over time. Every time the content industry lobbies golf a politician, copyright gets extended even more through Mickey Mouse laws, way beyond the point where the content can be reasonably monetized. If it was up to them, we'd still be paying royalties for Shakespeare, Homer, Herodotus and Julius Caesar. In some jurisdictions it's illegal for a father to read a paper book to his illiterate or vision-impaired child.

3) Those rights aren't eroding fast enough so they started using DRM and golfed the politicians into implementing strong legal protection for DRM in order to prevent you from enjoying the content that you purchased. Imagine if you bought a hammer and you were only allowed to work with it in your yard, but not inside the house, weren't allowed to take it to your friend's place, loan it to your friends and couldn't use it for work.. That's what DRM does to your legally purchased content.

4) Content producing industry always cries that without Stalinist anti-piracy laws content wouldn't be made.. That's pure b.s. A typical movie studio will buy hundreds of movie ideas for every movie made and prevent the rest from ever being filmed.

5) Learn from history.. What happened to alchemists who sat in their labs, jealously guarding their knowledge and ideas.. They got supplanted by universities and a system built on SHARING those ideas. The lobby wants to take us day to the days of alchemy.

Here's the link to a 1 page primer on SOPA. The link came from a site hosting a web comic that the author (opposed to PIPA an SOPA) makes his living with. https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/One-Page-SOPA_0.pdf I am not against a producer being paid for his ideas, but current laws bring small benefit to some private corporations and great harm to the individual and the society.
 
FiReSTaRT said:
I have several notes to make on this issue:
Click to expand...

Some good points. Nevertheless, some of them are social-based. If someone chooses to make themselves redundant by hoarding their work, that's their choice. It's their work. China casually ignores IP courtesy every day..I don't think most people feel that's ok, unless you're one of the people benefitting from stealing other people's IP.

Having said that, there should be due process. Again though, try following due process with foreign IP cases.

If you don't agree with the IP rules of a product, don't buy it.
 
invictus43 said:
Ask the Penguinistas about all this.. If I take a picture, it's mine. You can't use it without my permission. If you like the picture, go take your own. If I allow you to use the picture, so be it. Maybe I charge you to use the picture. It's not that difficult to understand. People who want things for free or are unwilling to muster up enough courtesy to even ask will try to muddy the water by saying "Well, I'm going to use it anyway, and you can't stop me.." and that's fine. Nevertheless, you're using something without permission. At least admit you're breaking the law. They don't feel the same way when I try to use their pool without their permission..
Click to expand...

agreed. The only exception I'd have is if you took a picture of me. I should be able to use it without permission, since it is me after all.
 
Last edited:
CruisnGrrl said:
current copyright laws prevent that.
Click to expand...

As they should. It's not your picture to use. You have a right to attempt to ban its use due to privacy concerns. But again, it's not your picture.

When you go to the track and buddy takes your picture, do you demand your CD because your image is on it? You can ask for it..you can pay for it on his terms. But you certainly can't walk in there and demand to use it. You can ask for them to be destroyed and they'll likely do that. He's providing a service and a product. And you can use that product based on his terms. Nobody is forcing you to buy his product. I'm using the royal "you" here.. :-) I mean anyone.
 
Last edited:
CruisnGrrl said:
the sopa and pipa laws only apply to america how ever they will have far reaching effects. the biggest complaint is the lack of due process/difficulty to appeal.
Click to expand...

And inside the US that may be a legitimate concern. But this may be global in nature and they're trying to avoid dragging foreign countries/companies into court..which is somewhat problematic..
 
Gummiente said:
The handgun scenario is a real stretch; the issue surrounding the whole SOPA saga is of intellectual property and copyrights, not weapons related offenses. As for my wife's "concerns" about that particular piece of artwork, the full story is that she contacted Harley midway through the creation of the painting (which, btw, is acrylic on canvas not oil on canvas) at my suggestion. She was told in clear terms that any unauthourised use of the HD logo in any genre of artwork would have legal implications. HD only authourises a select few artists, such as David Uhl and Scott Jacobs, to create and sell artwork with the HD logo. Of course, HD gets their cut from the proceeds of all sales and that's what it's all about.
Click to expand...

My oops on the oil vs acrylic but does that mean that she has to live in fear of painting a picture with a Ford car, CN tower or even a house? The house had a designer so why can't the designer sue. I can see HD raising eyebrows if the painting was an Andy Warholish copy of the HD logo and there were to be reproductions, posters and prints but a one off with obvious artistic merit even without the logo makes HD look paranoid. It is highly unlikely that the presence of a HD logo would affect the sale of that picture so why the bullying?

The bigger picture here is the harassment and intimidation of the public by mega corporations. Will it get to the point where we will fear making legitimate complaints?

Painting and speaking are both forms of communication. Are we to some day be banned from speaking the name of a mega corporation in casual conversation? If a person was a mute would they be banned from telling someone what they saw by means of a sketch?

Being anal is like playing on a teeter totter. The further the other person slides out on their side the further you have to slide out on yours.

Heaven help us.
 
invictus43 said:
As they should. It's not your picture to use. You have a right to attempt to ban its use due to privacy concerns. But again, it's not your picture.

When you go to the track and buddy takes your picture, do you demand your CD because your image is on it? You can ask for it..you can pay for it on his terms. But you certainly can't walk in there and demand to use it. You can ask for them to be destroyed and they'll likely do that. He's providing a service and a product. And you can use that product based on his terms. Nobody is forcing you to buy his product. I'm using the royal "you" here.. :-) I mean anyone.
Click to expand...


Oh I agree, the photographer created the content, and owns the copyright. I also believe in "fair use" as well. the SOPA/PIPA laws would kill fair use amongst other things.

for example, if a user posted a picture of mickey mouse in one of their posts on GTAM, under the PIPA/SOPA laws some one could make the accusation and this entire website would be shut down. That goes a little far. at the same time a site like google is at risk because it's job is to link to information, while crawling for links it finds the user mention mickey mouse, it catalogs it and then when some one searches for mickey mouse the search engine links to the post - google gets shut down even though it had no part in the copyright infringement other than reporting the link... and then you have the third scenario happening where some one falsely accuses a site of infringing, with the SOPA/PIPA laws it's a shoot first ask questions later approach.


Under the SOPA/PIPA laws many of our avatars (including mine) could get GTAM shut down even though currently they are protected under fair use. and before you say but gtam is a canadian site it is a .com which puts it under the domain of usa, all they would have to do is stop allowing gtamotorcycle.com to be able to be pointed at the server it is at. even worse would be if gtam is hosted on a server located in the usa, then it would be even easier for the government to pull the plug.
 
Re: looks like all site are shutting down in protest

CruisnGrrl said:
for example, if a user posted a picture of mickey mouse in one of their posts on GTAM, under the PIPA/SOPA laws some one could make the accusation and this entire website would be shut down. .
Click to expand...

You mean that's not really a portrait of you?
 
CruisnGrrl said:
Oh I agree, the photographer created the content, and owns the copyright. I also believe in "fair use" as well. the SOPA/PIPA laws would kill fair use amongst other things.

for example, if a user posted a picture of mickey mouse in one of their posts on GTAM, under the PIPA/SOPA laws some one could make the accusation and this entire website would be shut down. That goes a little far. at the same time a site like google is at risk because it's job is to link to information, while crawling for links it finds the user mention mickey mouse, it catalogs it and then when some one searches for mickey mouse the search engine links to the post - google gets shut down even though it had no part in the copyright infringement other than reporting the link... and then you have the third scenario happening where some one falsely accuses a site of infringing, with the SOPA/PIPA laws it's a shoot first ask questions later approach.


Under the SOPA/PIPA laws many of our avatars (including mine) could get GTAM shut down even though currently they are protected under fair use. and before you say but gtam is a canadian site it is a .com which puts it under the domain of usa, all they would have to do is stop allowing gtamotorcycle.com to be able to be pointed at the server it is at. even worse would be if gtam is hosted on a server located in the usa, then it would be even easier for the government to pull the plug.
Click to expand...

Fair points. I don't think they're coming after GTAM though..there still is some process and many people just can't be bothered. For instance, Disney probably can't bothered with a Mickey photo here posted by a user. But what if you posted a bootleg of an unreleased movie? Should GTAM be held accountable for hosting that content? The point is, Disney owns the Mickey photo and it's up to them how and where it's used. This is nothing new..just the medium has changed. If you print a magazine with a photo with copyright on it and don't pay a fee for its use, you're breaking the law. Websites are no different. They're just far more prevalent and much less regulated. It's been this way for a long time and people are whining now that it might be taken away.

If we would like to do away entirely with IP protection then that's a different debate.
 
sopa.gif


source: http://theoatmeal.com/sopa
 
invictus43 said:
Fair points. I don't think they're coming after GTAM though..there still is some process and many people just can't be bothered. For instance, Disney probably can't bothered with a Mickey photo here posted by a user. But what if you posted a bootleg of an unreleased movie? Should GTAM be held accountable for hosting that content? The point is, Disney owns the Mickey photo and it's up to them how and where it's used. This is nothing new..just the medium has changed. If you print a magazine with a photo with copyright on it and don't pay a fee for its use, you're breaking the law. Websites are no different. They're just far more prevalent and much less regulated. It's been this way for a long time and people are whining now that it might be taken away.

If we would like to do away entirely with IP protection then that's a different debate.
Click to expand...



there's already laws to deal with gtam or any other site hosting copyright material. the way SOPA/PIPA are written they can be misused maliciously with no retribution. it also throws out all "fair use" usage (my avatar currently falls under fair use, I made it from another picture).
 
nobbie48 said:
but a one off with obvious artistic merit even without the logo makes HD look paranoid.
Click to expand...

Well, duh. Do you not remember the massive legal effort by HD's legal dept years ago when everyone including flea market vendors were raided and had all their "unauthourised" wares seized? Try to find a t-shirt nowadays without the official certification tag on it. Harley jealously guards their logo and official suppliers, including the few artists sanctioned by them to paint portraits.

But you raise a valid point in that how far is too far when it comes to corporate harassment. I believe the intent of SOPA is honourable, but by the time it comes into play there will be too many corporate rights built into it and not enough personal rights.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom