Are SOPA Sponsors Violating SOPA Rules? Not So Fast, Says Ars Technica 115
TheNextCorner writes "Remember how the Stop Online Piracy Act would make streaming of copyrighted material a felony? Many of these lawmakers actually stream copyrighted videos on their websites." However, that's not the whole story. according to a followup at Ars Technica to the tweeted claims about streaming and SOPA. From which:
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation tweeted the post, and it was re-tweeted more than 100 times. So are the sponsors of SOPA hypocrites? We're not fans of SOPA, so we'd love to have this story check out. But we're also a news site, so we contacted James Grimmelmann, a copyright scholar at New York Law School, (and judging from his tweets, not a SOPA supporter) to get his expert opinion."
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Insightful)
The same people who sued to stop the Camp Fire Girls from singing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" in the woods around a fire as a "public performance" will be making accusations and shutting down web sites en mass. Because all it takes is for a site to be a suspected offender.
The laws are there to protect the media! (Score:3, Insightful)
And while this is happening, media will be blowing up a big "fight" between Mitt and Obama, as if either of them would stop the rape on your (and the rest of the world's) basic human rights.
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:USA is going nuts for Hollywood (Score:4, Insightful)
Well it's true that the US owes us much more cash to europe than europe owes to the US, what the heck does europe needs the USA for ? ... :-) and watch UK series instead of US remakes... (We might make an exception for future seasons of Episodes just be drive the point home...
Natural resources ? no it comes from other countries and what the US has it keeps...
Agricultural produces ? well we do import coca cola, but we could buy clones from other countries, OGM's well no thanks,
Manufactured products ? you mean those who are made in china ?
Hollywood products, well we are kind of addicted to, but we can move over to bollywood
So good by and thanks for all the fish, but ... it's not quite too late, just please fix your country. .... and only have 75 year old records to feed them..
a) do not not vote for any incumbent (we should follow this advice also)
b) make and execute a plan to divide by 10 your natural resource per capita intake.
c) stop accepting a society that thinks it's "ok" to have about 3% of your population in prison, or under some sort of judiciary control.
d) put a cap on salaries of professionals involved in sports (let's say 50% of an university professor or GP doctor whichever is lower)
(this might actually make sport a game again)...
e) put cap copyright protection period to 5 years, and patent protections to 6 month
(and give artist some lessons on "saving for old age" so that the various mafiaa's cannot argue that poor old artists need "extended protections" because they are now so old
Congressmen get the benefit of the doubt; we don't (Score:5, Insightful)
The lawyer says it's not a problem because the representatives are "unlikely to be willful infringers". They're public officials and everyone knows them. Therefore, no one is really going to take an infringement case against them seriously.
But what about the rest of us? What about some random kid posting the same sorts of videos to YouTube? Will there be anyone to say he's unlikely to be a willful infringer as well? Or will he just get sued straight away? Maybe he could hire an attorney, go to court, and spend months or years trying to prove he had a good-faith belief his actions weren't infringing. Or maybe he'll be scared into settling by some troll looking to extort money.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Insightful)
hairyfeet opined:
Bimbo Newton Crosby, what this does is gives the big boys a really nice weapon to shut down the indies.
For the first time in history we are seeing artists bypass the gatekeepers completely, going from 'viral sensation' to nationally known artist and this scares the living fuck out of them. They know in the age of YouTube and Twitter and a bazillion other non controlled communication circuits their ability to force artists into assraping contracts where they are basically nothing but cogs and "all your IP belong to us" is becoming a thing of the past.
Sadly the only way we have to fight back anymore is massive piracy, there simply is nothing else.
The ONLY way we are gonna get rid of these bastards is to bleed them to death, there is simply no other choices left now.
Here's the problem I have with your exhortation: indiscriminate "massive piracy" will not only harm the IP plutocrats of the RIAA, it will also adversely impact the very independent artists you claim to support - and it is them, and not the Sonys of the industry, who will be harmed the most. That's because the warez kiddies who do the vast majority of unauthorized downloading are unlikely to make any distinction whatsoever between music the rights to which the RIAA members control, and those recordings which are directly owned and controlled by independent artists themselves. Instead, in their enthusiasm to embrace "stick it to The Man" as a valid excuse to download every popular tune they see, they will gleefully end up harming the innocent along with the guilty.
It's very difficult to make a living in the music industry as an independent artist. And I mean VERY difficult. Every dollar in income you have to sacrifice puts you a dollar closer to being forced to hang up your guitar for good. And, while that's especially true for independents early in their careers, it is, to some extent, true of all independent musical artists. Downloading their music without their permission, and refusing to pay them for it is NOT "sticking it to The Man". It's sticking it to the artist him/herself ... and that's Not A Good Thing, especially if that artist is one whose music you like and would like to hear more of.
I know it's popular here on /. to maintain that artists "should" regard recorded tracks as pure loss leaders, and be content to make their money strictly from live performances. And that's fine, if you're Lady Gaga, or some other top-tier artist. But independent musicians - and, again, especially those who are just starting their careers, or who have, after struggling for years, finally released a hit record - don't pull in the big bucks for performances. Touring is expensive: transportation for you, and your band and crew, lodging for all of you, food for all of you, concert promotional costs (You didn't think those posters advertising that concert you think will be so profitable printed themselves, did you? Or posted themselves on all those walls, windows, and telephone poles?), liability and property insurance (On Pink Floyd's first U.S. tour, their van was stolen in Texas, and they lost all of their instruments, including Rick Wright's heavily-customized Hammond organ, their giant - and very expensive - gong, and all their guitars and amplifiers - and, as a result, they had to return to England, because they couldn't afford both to replace their gear and continue to pay for a tour that had been only marginally profitable for a band that, at that point, wasn't at all well-known here in the States.), merchandise (tee shirts aren't free - and neither is having your band's name and touring information printed on them), and so on. By the time you finish paying for all that - and much of it has to be paid for in advance - even a show in a decent-sized venue, at a relatively high per-ticket price (which you have to split with the concert promoter/venue owner, btw), to a sold-out audience is likely to make you exactly enou
Re:Not really the point (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll encourage outright piracy when you show that it actually hurts the RIAA, the MPAA, or their member companies.
As it is I think of it as free advertizing for despicable entities. Not actually immoral, but dangerous and stupid.
Doesn't check out. (Score:5, Insightful)
Claiming that they are infringing unknowingly is a nice idea, except for the fact that these guys ARE SPONSORING THE VERY LAW WHICH THEY ARE BREAKING. To claim that they are breaking the law unknowingly is claiming that they don't understand the law they are passing. This is a far more frightening prospect.
Also, what sort of law includes ignorance as an excuse for breaking it?